AJ88V

I have loved my real long cross country flights. Something very cool about getting up to altitude and trimming the airplane up just so.

Very cool. Amazing how many things one modern engine monitor can replace. Good luck!

Congratulations @Kaio Rangel! You'll appreciate that every time you get in her!

What we need is some of them nanbots to inspect the camlobes. Keep reedin' bout em in the magazeens. Heck, them nanbots could probly even repare those camlobes and fix other sh!t while we're flyin. Bout time aviation caught up with the modern world! Whare's Elon when we need him?

Thanks, guys. Interesting article from Mike Busch: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/pilot/pe_savvy It's still not entirely clear how one would handle a "pre-buy" on an airplane. I imagine that if the A&P takes apart anything and puts it back together (e.g., removes the spinner to inspect the hub), then that needs to be recorded in the logbook and signed. (that way, if the spinner comes loose and flies off, there's a record in the logbook to show who worked on it.) But then the article writes: But what if the inspection uncovers one or more discrepancies that make the aircraft unairworthy? And what if the owner is unwilling to have those discrepancies repaired? Can the inspecting mechanic simply refuse to sign the maintenance record entry and hold the aircraft hostage until the owner cries “uncle”? No, he can’t. FAR 43.11 provides guidance to the mechanic who finds himself in this situation. It requires the mechanic to “sign off the inspection with discrepancies” as follows: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated [date] has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.” The mechanic then hands the owner a signed-and-dated list of airworthiness discrepancies found during the inspection. At that point, the annual inspection is complete and the inspecting mechanic’s job is done. His signature disapproving the aircraft for return to service attests (at least in theory) that every atom and molecule of the aircraft is airworthy except for the items on the discrepancy list he handed the owner. My next question is, could you request that the pre-buy only provide a list of discrepancies separate from the logbook? But then wouldn't the pre-buy A&P be writing things like "removed and installed spinner" in the logs?

There's no way I'd allow a cylinder to be pulled for a pre-buy. Just move on. Think I know the answer to this, but asking this because I read the Mike Busch columns in AOPA where shops do unscrupulous things.... QUESTION: Let's say you're selling your plane and you've just completed annual with a shop you've used for years. The potential buyer has a pre-buy done by a mechanic of their choice. Can the A&P performing the pre-buy inspection ground the airplane if they find (claim) a discrepancy? I imagine this could turn very ugly.

Bubble pack/wrap is a good solution. I like the stuff with the small bubbles as opposed to the inch size bubbles. Easy to roll up and stuff in there to seal up the hole. BUT! you need to be out to the plane at least once a month or the d@mned birds will pick at it and eventually get through. I also have a Bruce's tailcone cover which works really well, but it's a pain to install whereas the bubble pack takes about 30 seconds. BTW, if you're getting birds in the tailcone, you're likely getting them in the engine cow (either top through the front or through the cooling flaps below. Both suck. The worst one is the hole through the flap actuator on the wing root. Very hard to block and you'll end up with an eagle-sized nest in the belly. I love birds, but just wish they'd pick on Pipers instead.

As a recovering rusty pilot, landings were the hardest thing to get right. During Mooney transition training 25+ years ago, my MAPA instructor drilled full-stop/taxi back landings into me. The only thing to close to a touch-and-go has been a handful of aborted landings for all these years, probably more go-arounds than actual T&Gs. Last fall, I had trouble getting a Mooney-rated instructor and my CFI had me doing T&Gs in a 172. Besides the fact that a 172 is all kinds of wrong , I really had trouble resetting doing T&Gs. Landings didn't 'click' until we did a few full-stop landings and *then* we did T&Gs. After finding a Mooney-qualified instructor, I did another 4 hours of dual in my airplane, about 40% of which was spent doing landings. On a particularly gusty day, we started doing T&Gs just to get more landings in. I know this post was intended to be amusing, but I get that 82 year old pilot. The link @1980Mooney posted https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N4248H looks very much like most of my recent flights as I'm getting comfortable in the air again, (amen!). So, yes, T&Gs have a place, but raise risks with a complex aircraft. Takeoffs and Landings are the two most hazardous phases of flight, and T&Gs let you exercise that even if you're 82 years old and still wanting to fly. In cruise, what's to worry about? Maintaining course and altitude? Looking for other aircraft? Smart decision making (weather, fuel, airports, etc.)? Following the rules of the road and not busting airspaces? For the most part, even the worst things you could do in travel mode are at least recoverable with a good landing. I feel sorry for the pilot. Maybe he was making a decision whether he should finally sell his beloved airplane. Maybe he was trying to get current so he could demo the airplane to a prospective buyer. Maybe he just wanted one last flight before selling her. The real shame is that he didn't have a CFI or at least a safety pilot with him and this (somewhat minor) tragedy wouldn't have happened. Hopefully we're all going to reach a ripe old age where we have to face giving up flying or driving a car. I wish you all well getting to that decision.

It's the first time I've read this thread and so sad to hear the situation. But you're right, Andrew, you've had an amazing life and gratitude (and love!) is what makes all the pain worthwhile. Thank you for being part of our airman and Mooney community. Thank you for sharing your trials and triumphs. Thank you for sharing your adventures restoring G-OBAL. You're leaving behind a plane that will continue on to be loved just the way you have loved her. Have faith. Be strong. God Bless, God Speed, and - Clear skies and tailwinds, AJ (another Andrew)

Just want to say thank you to all the contributors of this thread. I'm in the middle of a decision to install/upgrade for my 1970 C model or to just buy another plane. Knowing a lot more detail about the Aerocruz is definitely helping. Thanks!!!

While the flap speed is higher (I also own a 1970 C model), I've always thought of that being useful for when you're climbing out and forget to retract flaps, so you're not doing any damage. Fortunately, the plane just won't accelerate with takeoff flaps, so it's pretty easy to recognize when you do it! I usually deploy flaps at 100 mph on downwind abeam the numbers. This puts less stress on the stub spar (a known problem on the earlier birds) and the flap motor. (Note that retracting flaps at 125 is less stressful than deploying them at 125.) The gear speed at 120 mph is a big help in the (later) C models to both slow down and act like poor-man's speedbrakes (LOL). And even deploying gear at 120 should be the exception not the rule for those of us with the original "fast" 20:1 gear ratios. Fortunately, doing the "Mooney hump" (ok, the electric gear version) of a quick pull on the yoke to dump speed lets you deploy the gear at a lower speed than the 120 max. The point is, your flap and gear speed maximums are the limits of what you can do, but it's just gentler to deploy both at lower speeds. My two cents.

I'd say the E model outperforms the C in most performance categories, but both are great airplanes. That said, I own a C and see no reason to 'upgrade' to anything short of a J which is probably the sweet-spot for speed, room, and efficiency. The 231/252 is excellent in the turbo domain, but really requires operating at much higher altitude to realize the benefit. The C seems to be awfully close to a Cirrus SR20 for cruise, climb, useful load, and efficiency - real eye opener - but the C is a lot cheaper. Period. What really gets me is what an amazing platform Al Mooney designed with the M20, how adaptable it's been with additional power and fuselage stretches. This is why the focus on efficiency really paid off. Proud to be a Mooniac!

Search pulled up this thread

Sounds like a really cheap mod for some extra speed! (though it might interfere with your pitot-static cert)

Back on topic... I grab an old AOPA magazine (May 2024) to read in the gym and, lo and behold, find this gem by Kollin Stagnito: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/may/pilot/insurance-tell-your-story also this on liability-only insurance https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/august/14/new-liability-only-insurance-for-senior-pilots

The literature for the Powerflow exhaust system lists "diagonal cowl struts" for the M20C in their price list. The picture from the PF slicksheet https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zf-ZUKcKEpiImtYXfgiWbVMn2vkPnDFO/view shows what appears to be a rod extending from the firewall down to the lower front of the cowl. The price list has them at an incredibly low $200. (incredibly low for anything bolted to an airplane! ) My cowl sags when I remove the top and side covers. I only unfasten the top and halfway down each side of the side covers when removing the top and leave the rest connected to support the cowl front. When removing the sides, I first partially reinstall the side covers to realign the cowl front before installing the top. (pro tip: When installing the side covers, always start from the centers of the sides and work the fasteners out to the corners last. This will let you move the lower cowl and sides more easily as you put together the whole assembly top included.) Seems like these struts from Powerflow would be a good addition generally (although maybe they make access more difficult to other items in the engine bay). Suspect they are included in the PF exhaust STC and they're not sold separately, but maybe this is also a J-model Mooney part that could be added easily to an old C model? Anybody have them? What's your opinion?

Max book speed at 5000 MSL is 172 MPH (150 KTS) at 89% power (2700 RPM, 24.5 inches) burning 16.1 GPH. 1970 M20C is 140+ish knots at 10gph. Mine has many mods but not smooth belly, 201 windshield, Powerflow exhaust, or hinge fairings which are the ones I'd like to have. Said another way, the mods I do have brought her up to book speeds. The most-modded 'short body' is the CAFE Mooney (M20E) http://cafe.foundation/blog/185-mph-on-6-7-gph-cafe-mooney-for-sale/ Pro-level interview of Kyle Kennedy by MS Member @Hair Helmet here:

Getting back on track, I spoke with my insurance agent (whom I've used for decades) and the news was pretty consistent with @Parker_Woodruff's comments above. It sounds like I'll be ok with my current insurer (going on for maybe 15 years?), but if I want to change insurers, I'd better do it soon. I posed two scenarios - massive avionics upgrade or purchase of a different airplane (Navion Rangemaster ) to see if it was even worth considering. No problem with the Mooney upgrade, but the Navion was a problem without an IFR rating. It sounded like a Mooney-model upgrade would likely be ok, but my broker didn't inquire about that specifically. (there are a lot of great Mooney J, K, and later planes available that are definite upgrade candidates!) The IFR rating is planned for this year, but having a plane without a modern IFR setup is major stumbling block. Working on it.

Well, I totally botched my neighbor's airplane. It's a Fuji LM-1 Nikko. This is a four-seat airplane with yokes instead of sticks. But very military in its build and very cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuji_LM-1_Nikko

Ooooppppppssss! T34 adaptation. Both are very cool airplanes!

good idea. in case the baggage door flies open in trubulence and a passenger gets sucked out, they can grab the titanium handle and keep from knocking the tail off. that titanium is real strong stuff!

Can think of about 1000 things better to spend my money on than changing the baggage door.. I am, however, thinking about adding a newer, sexier handle on my baggage door, something made of stainless or aluminum.

I've owned my plane for almost 30 years, low TSMOH, low prop since new, and ok paint (2008?). Since the plane is owned outright, $50K-ish of avionics would still put me in the low $100K region. The higher numbers are if I jump to another plane instead. So, buy the old gal some flashy bling, or divorce to get a hot Slovakian model? As for @EricJ's comments, my hangar neighbor is maybe 10 years younger than me. Says he has 5 planes (I believe him), but he mostly flies the Fuji KM2 (T38-adaptation) that's in the hangar next door. He says he can only afford the insurance with very low hull values on them. I guess I could risk the loss of the aircraft in the future if insurance jumps through the roof.

Ok, pretty much nothing about AARP, only wanted to catch attention and spur discussion on something weighing on my mind. I turn 66 next month and finally joined AARP even though I won't be retiring for another year. Aviation is a major part of my retirement plan, and either '88V is getting a whole lot of over-priced avionics installed or I'm upgrading planes. My worry is insurance. Right now I'm carrying a hull value of $75K, but that will have to increase significantly with either upgrade above, maybe $150K or even $200K. Planning to call my broker today, but getting some ominous news reading the 'net. Things like: "I've been told by several people....and a broker......is that after age 68 it's impossible to switch carriers or get first time insurance." "Insurance is requiring me to get a 3rd Class Medical instead of Basic Med" What's your experience?

You're talking about the first video I posted from AOPA. Worth watching, but I think the second video posted is even more thought provoking.