Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by atn_pilot

  1. Well, I'm officially no longer a Mooney owner. Sold the plane yesterday. It was a great plane, but time to get something bigger. I'll definitely recommend Mooneys to people in the future. You can't beat 140 knots at 8gph.
  2. Congrats on the Cirrus! Nice airplanes.
  3. I have a somewhat tempting trade offer on the plane, but I'd really prefer to sell it outright. I need to get it sold quickly, though, otherwise the trade might be off the table in a few weeks. With that in mind, I'm willing to accept $45k in order to get a quick sale. If interested, please contact me. Otherwise the plane will probably be off the market at the end of the month so I can accept the trade offer. Thanks!
  4. Sorry, I know some guys get into that, but I'm not one of them. I know it runs great, has compressions in the 70s on all cylinders, and doesn't burn oil. But I'm more than happy to send scanned copies of the engine and aircraft logs to anyone interested.
  5. I'm a pilot, not a mechanic, so I don't understand half of that. Sorry. Here's what I do know, though: 1. No speed mods. The only significant mod is the O&N fuel bladders 5. Fixed step, no cowl flaps 6. Single CHT
  6. Love the plane, but I'm moving up to a cabin class twin Cessna, and can't justify keeping a second bird. She's impeccably maintained. In the past few years, she's been through two $10k annuals at MSCs to get everything in mint condition. The last annual was in December, and even with a few minor squawks, only cost $3k thanks to the excellent condition the MSC annuals put her in. I am pretty firm on the price, though. This is one of the cleanest C models you'll find around. AFTT: 3,794 TSTOH: 400 hours TSMOH: 1,700 hours Annual completed in December 2015 (compressions in the 70s) All ADs complied with, and detailed compliance log maintained Prop almost brand new; not even any paint peeling yet Bran new alternator, engine mounts, vacuum pump; tach refurbished last year MSC did a complete overhaul of the landing gear a few years ago Panel and interior redone a few years ago Garmin 430 (not WAAS) STEC 30 with altitude hold & GPS couple Shadin fuel totalizer (you'll love this if you're used to inaccurate fuel gauges!) EGT & cylinder head temps I'll throw in an Optical Tach and a Garmin GPS MAP 396 Logbooks missing for a few years in the 70s, but complete records before and after Price: $49,900 If interested, email me at
  7. Sadly, no shoulder belts or WAAS. Prop is almost brand new, engine has 1400 hours on it, but only 400 since top overhaul and crankcase inspection. Compressions all in the 70s. After the top, it probably has a good 1000 hours left in the engine, I figure. The plane did two high dollar annuals at MSCs in the last three years to get everything tip top shape. But you would need to put money into it in a few years for ADS-B.
  8. Burn less gas and get there faster with a Mooney. Seriously, it's a great plane. I'd keep it even after buying a 421 if I could justify owning two airplanes. If you're down this way and want to take a look, let me know. I haven't actually gotten it listed anywhere yet, but it will be soon.
  9. Good god, I haven't flown without GPS in over fifteen years. I'm sure I could still BS my way through an NDB approach or a DME arc, but it wouldn't be pretty! I wouldn't even consider buying a plane without IFR GPS nowadays.
  10. That's a new rumor on me. Not true, though. They're available from all over the place. They ain't cheap, though. Generally expect about $60k for an overhaul.
  11. Old wive's tale. Talk to the people who have actually operated them. No scarier than any other very high horsepower piston engine. You do have to baby them, but that's true of the non-geared variety, also. The geared engines is actually a big reason why I'm looking for one. They're quieter than most turboprops and some older jets.
  12. While I certainly agree that a thorough pre-buy is imperative, just like a house inspection, I just don't agree that there is value in a long trip to an MSC for it. I'm currently looking for a 421, which truly is a persona airliner. But I don't care if the pre-buy is done by a high dollar specialist halfway across the country. The chance of them uncovering something that any other reputable and well respected service provider wouldn't have turned up is virtually nil, so I don't believe there is value. But like I said, I know that anathema to many people around here.
  13. If you've got a local MSC that's very convenient, then it can make sense. But I just shake my head at people who will fly their airplane a few hundred miles, spend a few nights in a hotel while it's being worked on, and then fly it back a few hundred miles, just for an MSC, spending hundreds if not thousands more in the process. Personally, I find a lot more peace of mind in using my local guy who I know very well, because I know he's completely honest and trustworthy. If there's something that they can't do, he'll tell me right up front and recommend someone to handle it. And if he tells me that something should be done, I feel 100% confident that he's being honest and isn't trying to up-sell me. I would never be able to have that sort of confidence in an MSC out of town where I go once or twice a year and really don't know the people.
  14. Maybe unreasonable is too harsh. But definitely a bit unrealistic. He'll probably spend years looking for a plane that fits those requirements, and may or may not ever find one. I've noticed that 90% of airplane buyers fall into one of two categories: 1. Ridiculously anal-retentive - EVERY logbook has to be there; ZERO damage history, no matter how minor; ONLY an MSC will be satisfactory for the pre-buy; and on and on and on 2. Completely careless - usually brand-new people who just haven't done their research and don't know the pitfalls, but these are the people who buy $30k airplanes that usually cost $50k and wonder why they have to spend $30k the next year for maintenance I think both categories are ridiculous. There's a happy middle-ground. When you're dealing with 30+ year old airplanes, you can expect a missing logbook from the late 70s, and it's not something to worry about. You can expect a gear-up in 1985, and no, it's not a big deal. You can live without an MSC handling the pre-buy, as long as you hire a reputable and well known shop to handle it, and you ask them to be thorough. I know this is blasphemy around here, but MSCs are a complete rip-off, anyway. Moderation in all things. What you want is a well-equipped, well-cared for airplane. It doesn't have to be perfect, and you won't find one that is perfect, at least not in any reasonable amount of time. So chill a bit.
  15. With airplanes, you either pay now, or pay more later. Mooney annuals can get awfully expensive if you buy an airplane on the cheap that wasn't well maintained. Just some food for thought.
  16. No problem. If you know anyone else looking, send them my way.
  17. I'm thinking of selling my C, although it certainly won't do 150 knots. It'll easily do 140 at 10k, and occasionally peak a knot or two above that, but that's about it. No corrosion - check Low time engine & prop - check Good autopilot with alt hold - check Bladder tanks - check Basic but recent avionics - check (unless you consider a 430 fancy) Standard 6-pack - check Excellent maintenance history - check (maintained by MSCs by prior owner, and by reputable FBO since I bought it) Serviceable paint & interior - check (paint is older, but looks great) Speed mods - NOPE Engine monitor - NOPE, but does have a Shadin fuel totalizer 1965 or newer - check (1968) Less than $55k - check (I'll sell it for $50k, in fact) It does have a few years of missing logbooks back in the 80s. Not sure if that's a problem for you. With a few decades of annuals since then, didn't bother me. There was a prop strike years ago, but engine overhaul and prop replaced after that. I just put a brand new alternator in it. Not a single squawk to be found. My mechanic has a copy of the keys, and if there's so much as a loose sun visor, I tell them to take the plane and fix it. I've only had it for about a year, and I love the plane, but as a former airline guy, I miss my twin engines, weather radar, and cruising in the flight levels. I'm planning to trade in the super-efficiency of the Mooney for the super-comfort of a Cessna 421. Just need to sell the Mooney first. I've attached some pics.
  18. Keep in mind that the following advice is from someone with many thousands of hours, so if you're someone with a fresh instrument ticket, you need to be a lot more conservative until you build experience in IMC. That said, here's how I do it: 1. NEXRAD is great, but it's not airborne weather radar. I trust it to a certain extent, but that's a limited extent. It's great for finding large gaps in lines, or finding the edge of a line, but it's useless for picking your way through a line. For that, you really need airborne radar, or at least a storm scope. I usually go around lines unless I can find a large gap on NEXRAD that is no more than dark green. And by large, I mean large. A 20 mile gap can fill in in mere minutes when there is enough lifting activity. Don't play around with small gaps unless you've got airborne radar, and even then you need a good amount of experience in reading the returns. 2. Heavy rain is no big deal. Sure, it wears out the paint, but I budget for new paint quicker than it needs it anyway. Stay away from the red at all cost, and stay away from yellow unless it's dispersing and you're absolutely sure that it's in the later stages of dissipating. Dark green is no big deal. I promise you, your engine is not going to die from rain ingestion. If it did, part 135 freight pilots would be dropping like flies. 3. Ceilings are a very individual subject. I don't hesitate at all to fly when ceilings are at minimums. Other people don't feel comfortable with ceilings below 1,000 ft, because they just don't have any experience flying real approaches. The reality is that even when the ATIS says the ceilings are at 200 ft, they almost never are in a practical sense. What you'll see almost every time when you fly that approach is that there is a ragged bottom at 200 ft, but you can generally see the runway lights by 500 feet. In many years of airline flying, much of it flying CAT III equipment that could land itself in 0/0 conditions, I almost never needed it. Usually when I briefed an autoland because the ATIS was saying ceilings were at or below CAT I minimums, I ended up seeing the runway long before then and clicking off the autopilot. So I usually just carry extra contingency fuel when weather is forecast at minimums, but it never leads to a no-go decision. My suggestion is to practice lots of approaches under the hood until you can do them as second nature. Then wait for days when it's smooth IFR, and take a buddy to be a second set of eyes on the instruments and fly a bunch of practice approaches in actual IMC. Do that a few times when the weather allows until you feel just as comfortable doing that as you do under the hood. I promise you, with enough practice, instrument approaches to minimums are no more hair raising than visual approaches. I hate to see pilots afraid to fly their airplanes just because they've never put in the time to get the practice to feel comfortable. But by all means, never go flying unless you are comfortable.
  19. While it's a good idea to practice so you can see what it's like, it should be done by you looking outside and not looking at the ASI, while a safety pilot or CFI in the right seat is keeping an eye on the ASI to make sure you don't get too close to stall or overspeed anything. Completely covering the ASI while close to the ground is just plain stupid. Even with a failed ASI, most pilots have at least a handheld GPS or iPad nowadays giving them groundspeed, and any sane individual would use that backup to approximate airspeed if an ASI failed. All of this macho BS about "seat of the pants" flying needs to go the way of the dodo.
  20. I don't know where you're getting this "fixating" idea. Scanning instruments should be a normal part of every maneuver you do in an aircraft, just like looking outside should be a normal part of every maneuver (unless you're IMC).
  21. Seems that way. But reading his post, I don't really see any other way to take take it. Perhaps he will post to clarify.