glafaille

This looks interesting. Not yet available or legal for certified aircraft but who knows? We have 3 years to go. And it is small, weighs about 3 oz. Control the settings and configuration with your Iphone. http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/

The following is only my opinion. Here are some of the problems I see with multi-box ADS-B solutions. Interfacing all the boxes together is frequently a challenge, maintaining that interface through software updates of the various boxes seems even more challenging. Contemplating future avionics upgrades must always take the interface between the various devices into account and may restrict your choices of equipment or manufacturers in the future. If your system develops problems in the future it will likely be more difficult to troubleshoot and identify the offending piece of equipment as they are all networked together. Intermittent problems will likely be a real can of worms. I can tell you from experience that network problems with aircraft equipment can be a very expensive nightmare that drags on for a long time. On the other hand, a single box solution either works or it doesn't. One manufacturer to deal with and a minimum of failure points to cause problems. Software updates of other boxes or equipment upgrades will have no affect on your ADS-B capability. Finally, ADS-B out is legally a no-go piece of equipment. If it doesn't work you are grounded, except to get it fixed or to continue to your ultimate destination. Doesn't matter if you are VFR or IFR. Doesn't matter what airspace you will operate in, legally you are grounded. Any no-go piece of equipment or system should be as reliable and trouble free as possible in my opinion. A single box solution is the simplest to install, maintain and replace. I would like to see a truly single box solution that includes everything, including the encoder, WAAS-GPS, ADS-B In/Out tranceiver, wifi and transponder. One box to install and maintain, and not dependant on any other piece of equipment to work. The AOPA has sent out a warning email to warn owners of aircraft with ADS-B out installed. It seems the FAA is even now sending threatening letters to owners of ADS-B equipped aircraft if they detect the equipment is inoperative or malfunctioning. The AOPA is advising folks to contact the AOPA legal department if they receive such a letter. ADS-B is a very complex system with many associated variables to consider, and severe ramifications if inoperative. Your decision to equip or not, and what equipment to use should not be taken lightly.

Bad news indeed! But there is a silver lining in those storm clouds. Sounds like you found this early and may be able to treat it or repair it without too much hassle or expense. One of those rare cases where a fuel leak may have saved you a truly horrible surprise down the road. I hope it's an easy and inexpensive fix.

I know a guy that never sumps his tanks because he never puts water in them. He figures if there is water from condensation, that it will reveal itself during the taxi. I've known other folks that perform their own annuals, buy hardware from Home Depot, run avgas without an STC and fly IFR without a license or clearance from ATC. One of the reasons to do things "by the book" is because by doing so you have an easily defended position when called into court after the accident. Operating outside of approved procedures puts you in the position of explaining why you know more about the aircraft than the manufacturer. If your POH says that a mag check should be done before take off, I encourage you to do one.

If you are over 10,000 feet but less than 2500 feet above the ground then you still don't need ads-b. However, having to deal with the SFO Bravo will indeed make ADS-B out required for you.

Exactly my thoughts. Stay below 10,000, stay out of Class B airspace, and if you must enter Class C just get prior permission, then you don't need to comply with ADS-B. Plus you probably don't need a transponder anymore either! Put the money in your pocket!

Maybe a delay in ADS-B compliance? Go Trump!

A famous man once said "Trust but verify". Trust your mechanic, but there is no harm in getting a second opinion on a big issue like yours. I guarantee that there IS someone near you that will help you get your plane and you to a happier place. Mooneys are NOT the only planes in the world with wet wings, lots of planes have wet wings, your mechanic's reluctance to work on one speaks volumes to me. I'll bet he knows someone that can repair your tanks but would rather do the bladder install because he doesn't want to have this problem with your plane in the future. Plus he gets the install work. If you do decide to re-seal instead of bladders, how will your mechanic treat you and any future fuel leaks going forward? Sounds like you are forced to install bladders or find a new mechanic.

Solutions to the problem: Your immediate problem is that the plane cannot be moved. This makes it difficult to solve the tank problem. Your mechanic has told you he doesn't want to repair the tanks! Listen to him. Your mechanic can sign off the annual EXCEPT for the tanks and then re-assemble the aircraft. It will not be airworthy if the previous annual is expired, it MAY be airworthy IF not expired, subject to someone else checking out the tanks. You only need one tank to ferry the aircraft a short distance, many short flights may be required to get it to a tank shop. A ferry permit allows multiple stops enroute to a maint facility. You MUST be able to move the aircraft somehow! Therefore you need a cheap way to get good fuel to the engine for a short ferry flight. You will then need someone to fix the tank problem once and for all. 1. Get on the phone and contact every MSC in the country in a search for bladders. 2. Contact the major tank re-sealing companies and ask for help. Those guys know their business and often travel. They will probably have a solution to your problem. 3. There are independant tank re-seal specialists that are not Mooney specific and that travel. One of them may be able to repair one of your tanks enough for a ferry flight. 4. Get the airplane out of that mechanics shop with the annual signed off, except for the tanks. Someone else will be able to get you going enough to move the plane to another shop to fix the tanks. 5. Get on the phone, call every maintenance shop within 100 miles of you. Someone knows someone that will help you get it fixed enough for a ferry flight.

A good pre-buy examination is crucial to aircraft ownership happiness, and even better if the pre-buy is a full blown MSC annual. One of the problems I ran into during my hunt (unsuccessful) for a Mooney is that often a potential aircraft was not located within a reasonable distance of a Mooney Service Center. No doubt I ended up passing on several good aircraft that unfortunately were located in "out of the way" places and/or too far from the MSC. When computing the price I was willing to pay for such an aircraft, I was forced to allow for a less than optimal pre-buy, and a likely nightmare first annual, which usually made my offer WAY less than the buyers asking price and ultimately unacceptable. I often wondered why such sellers didn't list their aircraft with a broker in a more accessible location. It's very difficult to find a nice, fairly priced, well maintained, somewhat upgraded, 50 year old aircraft, located within a reasonable distance of an MSC, with complete logs, no corrosion, engine overhaul within the last 2 decades, and no damage history. Airplane purchasing is a risky business fraught with unscrupulous brokers and more than a few insincere sellers. Extreme caution is advised.

I have been innoculated against G. A. S. ! Having spent my early professional life around old airplanes owned by underfunded companies, I can say with confidence that I am now immune. I've learned just how much utility can be had with minimal equipment. I certainly admire all of the whiz bang stuff you gents buy, and if I had unlimited AMUs, my plane would rank with the best. Sadly, I'm nearing retirement and find myself in a position similar to those companies I flew for many years ago. Therefore I must fly with what is there in the panel, and surprisingly, the job gets done, just as before.

Wildhorseracing: I have been flying professionally for over 40 years, learning to fly in the Army in helicopters in 1975. I've spent several years as an instrument instructor and more recently as a FAR 135 check airman. In my opinion, your odds of successfully meeting the requirements for an instrument rating are poor UNLESS you are 100% commited to the task. Any doubt or question in your mind as to the necessity of an instrument rating is like poison to completion. The instrument rating is the most difficult, most demanding rating you can get, even harder than an ATP in my opinion, because it introduces an entirely different way of thinking and flying. You must re-learn to fly, not by what you see out the window, or an instinctive feel, but instead only by what you see on your instruments. I guarantee you will get a good case of vertigo sometime during your training, you will have to force yourself to NOT trust your senses. The rules, regulations, and procedures are all familiar but still very different than what you are now used to. Furthermore, while "close enough" may work fine flying VFR, instrument flight requires a high degree of precision and constant concentration. If you are not "in with both feet" you will not finish, it's not a task to be taken lightly. There are a very high number of folks that attempt the rating but never finish due to the intensity of the task. Usually folks drop out and never return. But some folks do return to finish training, and usually after they have scared the crap out of themselves and their passengers. They are the lucky ones, some folks scare themselves and don't survive the inadvertant IFR encounter. My brother in law is a VFR pilot and has been for many years. It takes a special person with patience and incredible self control to fly VFR, wait for VFR conditions and never be tempted to push things a bit with the weather. If you are that person then perhaps you don't need an instrument rating after all. But if you are like many of us, seeking more utility from their craft, an instrument rating is the key to making it more useful.

That is correct. WAAS enables you to go a little lower on an approach by providing a glide path reference, and can provide a position source for an ADS-B out solution.

I came across the deal by looking for a hangar rental for my Grumman Tiger. I found someone interested in selling both their M20E and their Quonset hut style hangar. The hangar is in similar condition as the plane. Good structural condition but needs work. Wish I found this deal 6 months ago when I was looking in earnest for a Mooney! The Grumman popped up after 6 months of fruitless Mooney hunting.

Thanks to all for the opinions, I will consider them carefully. The difficult issue for me is that the Grumman fits my needs well except for being 20 knots slower than the E. I have an older IFR legal gps, newish engine and prop, Stec 30 autopilot and good paint and interior. It is a very usable IFR platform. The E at this point is not legal for IFR and has no autopilot or GPS of any sort other than what you bring on board in your bag. The E doesn't offer any immediate increase in capability or pleasure to my operations other than more speed. It has less capability in so far as it is a VFR only aircraft at this point. The E does have more potential capabilty IF I decided to sink a lot of AMUs into the project. I suppose I should nibble a bit more on the bait by talking to the mechanic and reviewing the logs in detail. That should help clear the fog of indecision. There are unusual personal issues involved on the part of the seller that further complicate the deal, but I'll just put those aside until I review the logs. I will post updates as the deal matures.

OK. News to me. Thank you for correcting me.

I came across an E model recently that has piqued my interest, comes with a hangar, which is what I was really looking for. Here are the specs on the plane: 1966 M20E hangared for at least the last 10 years and currently flying. Current on ADs and maintenance by Mooney savy mechanic, unfortunately not Don Maxwell. 4000 total time 300 hours on engine, 7 years ago, by reputable shop with new cylinders 300 hours on Top Prop, also 7 years ago Electric Gear, hyd flaps Geared up 7 years ago, new 1 piece belly installed at that time, no other mods. Airframe appears straight with very little hangar rash Original paint in poor condition Original interior in fair to poor condition Original panel with KX170s and an ADF No other avionics upgrades since new Minor fuel leak around area of sump drains. Tanks never resealed. No obvious signs of corrosion Mooney PC system present but disconnected/inop Gear looks rough with caked on grease and missing paint Overall impression is straight airframe, good engine and prop but everything else is run out. I'm thinking the only value here is the engine and prop, otherwise a parts plane. Seems like a shame to part out a flying aircraft, but the cost to upgrade everything would be more than the aircraft is or would be worth I think it's worth $20,000, maybe. What do you gents think the plane is worth?

Per FAR 91.527, frost related to cold soaked fuel may only be allowed if it is on the underside of the wing, and then only if permitted by the Ops Specs as Guitarmaster said. FAR part 121 may be even more restrictive.

FAR 91.527 is pretty clear on the issue of ice. That being said, the aircraft may or may not be able to physically take off with airframe ice present. No one knows for sure, and there are no performance charts to indicate the amount of runway required or climb rate to be expected with varying amounts of airframe ice adhering to the aircraft. Therefore it is prohibited for any safe, sane and legal operation of aircraft. If you find yourself in a situation where you face certain death if you don't take off with the icing present, and likely death if you do, I guess you could roll the dice and give it the old "James Bond" try. If you live, you might want to consider the wisdom of the decisions that led you into that situation in the first place.

I don't think that is an STec autopilot, looks like the annunciator panel for the GPS. I have one just like it in my plane.

This one looks much better and it's close to Dmax in Longview for a pre-buy.

Looks like a non-IFR installation of an otherwise IFR capable Garmin GNC300XL GPS with com. The GPS CDI appears to be above the audio panel which places it out of the proper field of view for an IFR installation. ADS-B may or may not be a problem in 2020 depending on where you intend to fly. I think I see an old Narco Nav 122 "all in one" closest to the radio stack on the left side. Looks like the panel has been updated to be similar to a 201 with "6 pack" lay out on the left and the angled panel on the right. The panel and avionics are dated but entirely usable for IFR after verifying proper operation. No pictures of the interior usually means it's trashed. Paint looks fair. At this price, my primary concern would be the engine. 400 hours in 14 years is not much flying. On the other hand it could be a bargain, not many good choices out there for this amount of money.

I live in Tyler Tx, about 50 miles from Longview (KGGG) and Don Maxwell's shop. I have a flexible work schedule and am available to help with transportation for those visiting his shop, particularly if you live in the Central or West Texas area. However, you will have to be satisfied riding in my 1978 Grumman Tiger instead of a Mooney . The Grumman version of a service center is located at Silver Wings Airpark just west of Fredericksburg Texas. Hopefully you can help me with transportation when I need to visit the Grumman shop. PM if you want to talk about a flight.

So one could land outside the Mode C ring and drive into town. Spending between 5 AMU and 10 AMU to avoid the drive may not make sense. It all depends your particular needs and finances. If you operate in the Northeast or in Southern California you may have little choice, compliance is likely required to get any utility out of your aircraft. However, those operating in less populated areas may be able to avoid ADS-B airspace and still realize a high degree of utility with their aircraft. The unintended consequences of ADS-B are interesting to consider. For instance, will traffic at airports just outside of Class B airspace see an increase in traffic after 2020? Will smaller airports now under Class B airspace see a reduction in traffic after 2020? Or even this question I saw on another board; Why even have a transponder in your aircraft after 2020?

Unless the price of ADS-B equipment and the cost to install comes down by 1/2, I foresee widespread non-compliance in the GA community. Particularly in less congested areas. Personally, I do not fly in Class B airspace, and see no problem with utilizing airports outside of Class B airspace, and driving to where I need to go. Furthermore, I believe permission will be easy to obtain to operate in Class C aircspace without ADS-B, so maybe no issue there, and I rarely fly above 10,000 ft. Therefore, in my case, ADS-B compliance provides little additional capability to my airplane, but does add significant potential for missed flights. If ADS-B is installed it MUST be on and operational at all times the aircraft is operated regardless of airspace or mode of operation. ADS-B out becomes a no-go item and a potential for missed flights. Long tunnel, no cheese.