AJ88V

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.

Pretty consistent to discussion above https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/january/06/change-of-emergency-plan-preceded-fatal-accident

also lots on eBay

Spent a bit of time looking at the environs surrounding Fullerton using Google maps. Probably about as bad as it gets for clear off-airport places to land. Even though making the runway in a Mooney would be questionable, it might be that the field still offered the most clear spots to stuff it down right now, even if not making a RWY. How horrible for the pilot, family, and Fullerton community. There but for the grace of God....

I always used TriFlow spray on the starter shaft, but was thinking of switching to graphite spray per @47U's suggestion. Found this cheaper at Home Depot than Amazon https://www.homedepot.com/p/Blaster-5-5-oz-Industrial-Graphite-Dry-Lubricant-Spray-8-GS/202597501 Opinions?

That was terrifying!

Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying before, he probably could have make 06. He had power into the initial turnout (climb and increasing airspeed), but then lost power after his initial 90* turn. The track alone indicates he was likely to successfully continue the left turn, followed by a right bank to complete the teardrop onto 6. What we don't know is what the winds were, so maybe a tailwind also factored into his decision making, combined with a somewhat short 3100' runway. Agree also with your second point about prepping for takeoff failure options. But, just pulled up the airport in google maps and see this airport has pretty much nothing available nearby. It's either the airport or the surface streets. Makes me want to start considering that for choosing airports in the future!

Fantastic discussion here

Worth a look:

Worth a look. Makes a good point that the turn is loser to a 360 than a 180. I’d guess our Mooneys would perform closer to the Bonanzas in the vid below.

It is hard to conceive that the pilot did not deviate and land on 6 as @Skates97 suggests. Even the controller offered it to him, clear to land on 6, winds calm. My guess is that he was stressed under very high workload and opted to land with a conventional (comfortable) left-base pattern on 24 instead of an unconventional teardrop onto 6. This probably reduced workload, which might have been a safe decision, until it wasn't. At 22:08:35, he was at 700 MSL / roughly 600 AGL with 100 mph airspeed. Stall is only 63 mph on an RV10 (not adjusting for weight). Maybe he thought he was too high and too fast to land on 06 which is only 3100 feet? Looks totally doable, even if you had to slip it in at the end. Tragic. So sorry for the family and the community at Fullerton. Time to go practice some unconventional approaches and short field landings.