AJ88V

Here's good luck to you @MooneyMert. I just went through this and it took several years. Scheduling tests during/soon after covid didn't help. Don't delay with responses and any additional documents to the FAA. Keep calling. I kept getting the standard "We have your documents and it's under review" until one day I got someone else who actually looked at what was submitted and said something like "Well this doesn't look like an issue at all. Call back in two weeks." Was still a few months after that. Have faith!

I know Kaw makes a fine engine, but by the time this becomes real real, it won't be that much different from a Rotax if it's aimed at the GA market. It won't be able to spin motorcycle fast (e.g. 10,000+RPM) to make that much power for very long, so they'll end up increasing displacement and reducing RPM just to get.a sustainable gear reduction system. It would make more sense if they were targeting expendable military drones as @toto suggested. A 200hp engine in the $5000 range that could hold together for even 200 hours reliably would likely find a market. Recall that the best power to weight engines of WWII only had TBOs on the order of 500-800 hours for manned applications. A 200 hp / 200 hr service life engine would carry a significant payload for some sort of loitering munition. It doubly makes sense, as we should expect Japan to significantly ramp up defense spending re. CHN.

Lots of great discussion in this thread. One the subject of failures and redundancy, my vacuum pump crapped out on my last flight before losing my medical. Fortunately a decent VFR day, but unnerving nonetheless. Returning to flight, I bought the little Dynon D3 "pocket panel" https://dynonavionics.com/pocket-panel.php which is a nifty bit of solid state redundancy on the cheap. Sure, the airspeed, direction, and altitude are all GPS-derived, but the unit is completely self-contained (external GPS antenna works better in my Mooney), including hours of battery backup. I also bought it to start getting used to looking at a modern glass display. Biggest caveat is that my Mooney panel is so crowded that mounting options are practically nil for having it in good visual field. Really want a better mounting option for it. Your and @Vance Harral's points on proficiency are spot on. One thing that concerns me about glass panels is the sheer amount of flexibility and button-ology. While I'm very high-tech by career, I'm amazingly lazy when it comes to learning software. Steam gauges are kind of fixed in their operation. Learn their vagaries (precession in turns and acce/decel, errors setting barometric pressure, etc.) and they just become automatic. Even that Dynon D3 is pretty stone simple. But ForeFlight is a whole 'nother story. So much capability, but it takes a lot of study and experience to learn how to get the benefit. I hate the idea of scrolling menus in a high-workload situation (doubly so without an autopilot!). AOPA Pilot mag had an article in the past year - part of their Sweepstakes airplane coverage - about Garmin's 3 day training program. 3 DAYS! But I bet most of us just start using the stuff and never become proficient.

Not that I have a ton of experience using ForeFlight on my iPad, but I did/do find the traffic displays somewhat confusing. It took me a bit of digging, but I figured out how to turn off all the traffic way out of my altitude zone (say +/- 2000 ft, ok forgetting the details). Getting rid of the no-factor high altitude jet traffic in busy DC airspace really helped. Please post up if anybody has a link to a video or better discussion of this topic. Thanks

So, got some preliminary quotes back. Both include keeping a VOR in the form of a GNC-215. Haven't discussed keeping the KX155 instead, or just forgoing the VOR. A 'basic' Dynon 10" single setup without AP will run around $60K. The AP would add another $15K. A refit of the current panel using G5s, JPI monitor + an AeroCruz AP will run just over $52. I like the G5s, but am not thrilled with the placement of the bottom one places the knobs way low on the yoke, but the AP is a big deal. Dunno, really hate to throw in this kind of money and not have a big display. One unexpected cost driver was the cost of developing a new panel vice a retrofit. Next step is to just fly out to the shop next week and dig into more options.

I was actually thinking of doing exactly that (keeping one Kx155 and CDI). But you also make a good point that about the cost of the GNC 215 + GNC 355 being almost the same as a GTN 650xi. In fact, the 650 is only about $1K more with the current rebate, plus that would be simpler to install and it's a much more desirable unit. Really appreciate the discussion above. As a VFR pilot, a lot of it is going over my head, but some is sinking in. Also thinking of keeping the steam gauges. I was pretty good on aircraft control under the hood when I tried getting my IFR cert 15 years ago. Not sure there will be room for the old gauges in the Mooney panel, or if that will drive the cost unnecessarily. How hard was it for you to transition to a glass panel with tapes instead of dials?

I was actually thinking of doing exactly that (keeping one Kx155 and CDI). But you also make a good point that about the cost of the GNC 215 + GNC 355 being almost the same as a GTN 650xi. In fact, the 650 is only about $1K more with the current rebate, plus that would be simpler to install and it's a much more desirable unit.

I'm a VFR pilot just starting my IFR training, so I'm pretty ignorant and welcoming of advice. My current panel has a pair of King radios and indicators, one just VOR and a the other VOR/GS. I haven't really used them since I bought my first handheld GPS, although I always would tune in VORs as habit on long cross countries just for situational awareness, habit, and ready backup in case the GPS failed. I'm looking at replacing the entire panel with Dynon HDX glass and a Garmin GNC 355 or GPS 175. This leaves the plane without a VOR/GS receiver. Dynon's VHF radio is comms only. I could put in a GNC 215 as the second radio instead to get the VOR/GS, but is it even needed anymore? What am I realistically giving up by not having VOR/GS? I don't think most of the smaller airfields I'd be using would even have it. And if I went for a VOR/GS like the GNC 215, what's the utility of having only one, or do I really need two of them? I appreciate your input. Thanks!

Appreciate the notes, everybody. @cliffy, you wrote: "Running the right aileron cable out thru the wing will take planning for the autopilot". I'm thinking I would do the panel first and hold off on the autopilot, both to control cost and get to minimum down time, but is the cable you're referring to something that I might 'pre-install' while I'm in there doing something like temp or AOA probes? Also... Maybe I should take the design / buy-list questions over to the Avionics section, but I will ask one here: What do you do about VOR receivers/diplays? The Dynon radio appears to be comms only, and if I use a Garmin GPS/Comm like the GNC355, that leaves me without VOR or Glideslope receivers. Would really like to dump my King stuff with fading displays.

Ahh, I knew he did the Aerocruz, but assumed he was an A&P. Thanks!

I've now seen several Mooneys on YouTube with Dynon glass suites. The Skyview HDX was developed for the home-builder crowd and is supposed to be especially easy to install ("FastTrack installation products" including racks and pre-made harnesses, etc.). Dynon has a program to let a regular A&P install. https://www.dynoncertified.com/stc-install.php My local A&P has done several of fulll-glass Garmin installs for his personal planes, mostly done by non-A&P apprentice mechanics under supervision, and said he could work with me if I wanted to do the install. I could work on this nearly full time since retiring. Has anybody on Mooneyspace done this? What was your experience? Thanks!

The genesis of starting this thread was that a very close friend was reading MS and there was a discussion on the ply rating, and admonitions about having a 6-ply tire on a plane where the TCDS specifies 4-ply. "Good friend" was thinking about running a 6 ply tire and higher pressure (per the M20F) and found, upon checking his front wheel that it was already a 6-ply tire installed recently at last annual. Before posting, I found this article from AOPA: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/april/15/whats-so-special-about-aircraft-tires I’ve often been asked if it makes sense to purchase a stronger tire than that specified by the manufacturer (i.e. purchase a 6-ply tire when a 4-ply is specified). The answer is definitely no. More plies are not necessarily better. Each aircraft is designed for a specific tire, and tires with higher ply ratings than specified may not be suitable for a variety of reasons. More plies don’t make a tire last longer, and since those extra plies need to go somewhere, they wind up decreasing the interior diameter of the tire. In addition, more plies make a tire run hotter. This, along with the difference in stiffness, can affect the way a tire performs. That's consistent with the advice from many online articles. To me, putting a 6-ply tire on a short-bodied Mooney doesn't rise to even a minor mod based on installation on the F model, but thought I'd ask. thanks!

Apologies for old topic, but, IIRC,...... M20(-,A,B,C,D,E) all have 4-ply rating tires on the nose gear. M20F has 6-ply rating tires on the nose gear. The nose gear system is identical on these airplanes (including wheel well, gear assembly, actuations, doors, etc.) Vaguely recall discussions on failing ramp checks for having the wrong tire ply rating. Would certainly understand a problem having 4-ply rating on the F model, but what's the problem with a 6-ply rating on the real short bodied Mooneys. Thanks! (and let the fireworks fly! )

My old tail number was N9459V, as in "niner four five niner victor" which has too many long i's and too many er's in it, and controllers always butchered it.. Adding cadence and pauses helped, such as "niner <pause> four five <pause> niner <pause> victor" mostly worked, but no guarantee, and annoying to 'lightning fast' controllers working busy airspaces like JFK. Also hate tail numbers with too many syllables. Had a training aircraft ending in UJ and didn't like that much. "Uniform Julliet" was too much for my slow Southern tongue. I tried lots of combos when picking new tail numbers to get something that was both easy say and easy for the controllers to get right the first time. 7788V has been pretty perfect. Gonna miss that number if I ever sell her.

Strongest I've done was in AZ up near the Grand Canyon. Forgot the specifics, but plane (C) was fully loaded, wind was strong, direct 90* crosswind. Warning on approach from big smokestack near town had the smoke coming out at a sharp right angle to the stack. High crab into the wind to the 7000 ft rwy, landed half flaps on the right wheel on the far right side of the ryw. Did not use much length, but proceeded to skitter across the entire 150' width of the rwy and almost put her in the grass on the left side (ok, probably rock-strewn bare earth - wasn't inviting). I absolutely do not recommend doing this and do not care to repeat it. FWIW, I think you get most of the stall speed reduction from half flaps. Full flaps gives you nothing but drag (witness climb out if you ever forget to set takeoff flaps). No flaps gives too high a stall speed, so half flaps for me in these conditions. YMMV

Cheapest I found online was about $7.50 through Etsy. Think it was for a "switch" label used for electrical panels. EDIT: LaundryRoomShop - https://www.etsy.com/shop/LaundryRoomShop As @laytonl, a local trophy shop may be similar (or cheaper) and faster.

That's an amazingly generous offer @DCarlton. Good on you!!!

@jeremyc209, you might want to reach out here for the fuel filler parts:

Well, the short and simple story is one would be lucky to get this plane truly airworthy for $120K cost plus $80K min, which puts the purchase into a whole 'nother level, so it would be better to just start looking at $200K+ airplanes (which I'm just not needing to do! :D) Of course, one might get lucky and it's a lot easier than that, but this plane seriously exceeds my mission needs. The extra complications and costs come with drawbacks as well as benefits. Back to looking for a J or similar NA plane. Or just upgrade my wholesome little C!

Sorry for the loss of one of our brethren. Clear skies and tailwinds.

This has been very helpful. Thanks!

Saw this on Trade-a-plane. I'm in the market. What's wrong with this plane? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20M+BRAVO&listing_id=2440024&s-type=aircraft

Just curious about the tail number of the tiger painted plane!

Really glad to hear about this. All the doom and gloom was making me want to sell the plane. If the price is reasonable, I might just want to buy a set to hold in inventory.

My attitude is that if you're NEEDING best glide speed, you're better off just learning/picking a/sticking with a "best glide speed" and putting your focus on where you will put down. In my case, that's 90mph. Sure, it may be more optimal at some other speed, but that advantage is small, whereas picking where you're putting down and how you manage the final approach to that spot is way more important than the maybe 500 - 1000 ft in distance you might gain by optimizing best glide. Said another way, your brain is gonna be all kinds of busy, so pick a speed and focus on all the other stuff like maintaining attitude, looking for obstructions, shutting off fuel, making a last radio call and shutting off electrics and popping the door and maybe making a gear up/gear down decision. And if all that works out well, you'll likely end up too high at the end and need to slip her in to land at your chosen best/optimal spot. YMMV.