Schllc

I don’t think rop alone would be the cause either. I think the early acclaims had a coking problem that contributed to a lot of the early tops. I would bet a lot of the others are people just wringing them out at max mp, max rpm which means higher temps everywhere. I suspect a lot of tops are overly conservative maintenance. In the case of 98FL there were also four prop strikes and a period of sitting idle for over a year somewhere in the midst of those four tops. lastly, how does that old adage go, unhappy customers talk to 1000 people and happy ones talk to 10. I think we are very likely to hear all the bad stories but the happy guys are just flying along. I know several acclaim owners pretty well, some of the planes I’ve owned and none of them had had any tops done and only one has even had a cylinder changed. I’ve flown with people that never once looked at power settings, temps etc. they just fly it like a flight school 172. you wouldn’t think an airplane owner would be so oblivious, but they are more common than you think.

I meant after a prebuy and due diligence, it ultimately comes down to your gut. Are you minimizing serious issues bc you love it, or are you over dramatizing small things because you don’t feel it? Your gut isn’t usually wrong, we just tend to all ignore it more than we should.

I have looked at a LOT of planes in the last 8 years. Many of them hangar queens. some of them like this, sitting and out of annual for many years. looking back at the ones I passed on I have seen some start up, fly off and be totally ok, and others that went down, (one of them, that I know of, literally). from my very small experience it seems just as likely to go either way. What I took from the corrosion comments wasn’t that sitting is worse than flying, but if it was corroding when it was parked and eight years without an annual, lots can happen. that being said. The condition the plane was in when parked is also a real factor. If the guy treated it the way you would hope, there is potential for a diamond in rough, and even if you have to replace an engine and be a little upside down, a pristine interior and paint is no small factor either if the airframe is sound. I think you should follow your gut, do your due diligence, understand what you are getting into with aircraft ownership, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If you feel good about your purchase with realistic expectations you won’t regret your decision. The upside of having to rebuild the engine is you will have a solid engine to care for and build confidence. Lastly, airplanes are like boats, houses and classic cars, they are ALL projects to one degree or another. Yes, even when new, I owned two brand new ultras, and they both had squawks and issues.

It would seem easy enough for them to publish any open orders they currently have for either in house parts or outsourced, and identify the lead times in relationship to the quantities needed for an order. if everyone wanted to have a back spring on hand for the day it goes down, to see that 50 need to be ordered and only 20 people have stepped up, may be an incentive for msc’s or owners who would be willing to pay up front for a good idea of a delivery date. would also be a huge savings for Mooney to be able to set up a jig for something like a gear door, and to make 20 instead of one. This would just be good business and wouldn’t cost that much to add to as a page to the website. I am certain they have a database to track orders internally that could be queried.

My poh says five min at low power settings. Period. I don’t think anyone here, so far, is arguing that a turbo doesn’t need to cool down before shutdown. I think the discussion surrounds what constitutes a cool down. I cannot see a more gentle phase of engine power settings/temps than landing phase. High air flow, low power settings, followed by what would be typically a short taxi at near idle. If five minutes at idle is all that is required (per manuf) it would stand to reason that after a normal landing and taxi, a turbo is as cool as it’s going to get. Im not suggesting that manufacturers are stupid. What I am saying is their recommendations are almost always predicated on the worst possible conditions, with a healthy safety margin. I also think if coking and turbo failures were that prevalent, there would a temp probe in the center section Simple thermodynamics, physics, common sense, and empirical experience are valid and relevant, and while permutations do complicate absolute certainty, blindly following some generic guidance in a manual that doesn’t consider reality isn’t always the best path either.

Until you swap them out and see for yourself, it’s hard to appreciate the difference they can make.

I agree, even with an ifr 1000nm trips are 6+ hour trips. I fly a lot for business, but I do not have to fly “my” plane for business. I made a promise to myself to not ruin my passion by taking the fun out of it, so when it’s questionable weather or over five hours one way, I don’t usually take my own plane. While a 1,000nm trip is certainly doable, it is an exhausting trip in a single engine piston. The noise alone wipes me out, and even though I have done them many times, I would never even consider one without several days between return flights. Even then it’s not something I’m excited about.

Is a common mistake people make, thinking FAA is “Federal Aviation Administration” it’s actually the “Feckless Aviation Administration”

I dont believe his comparison is in any way valid when looking at year for year with same equipment. When I bought my first ovation I looked hard at the bonanzas in the same years with the same equipment and the bonanza was the one that cost double what the Mooney costs. This is still relatively true today. Now if you look at a g1000 Mooney and a 1975 Vtail it may be double but not comparable years and appointments. That just isn’t correct. I would also love to hear the results of the test of which is faster and more fuel efficient. It’s less aerodynamic and it is absolutely heavier so how could that be? I find it difficult to believe the bonanza is that close on either, but I don’t have enough experience to argue it as fact. Before I get burned at the stake, I think the bonanza is a very nice plane, and I completely see what someone would favor one they generally have a higher useful load, and can carry more things and people. I have considered them seriously more than once, and wouldn’t rule it out in the future. The challenge is once you get mooney in your blood it’s hard to shake. I’m fiercely loyal to the brand, heavily biased and human so not likely to change. But…. I wouldn’t argue with anyone over it

Lol, I wasn’t avoiding permutations, the scenario did it describe any of this, nor indicate delays in routing etc. This would absolutely be no problem for me to continue my planned flight. I am IFR rated and I maintain currency. None of the answers fit my response. You may get a delay notice on the ground , rare in a piston, and you may get a clearance release delay, but no one is going to guarantee you have an hour longer flight before you take off. I would probably have filed, taken off, climbed over it, and canceled if I started getting jacked around. It happens every single flight I take out and in to SW Florida over the panhandle. I have never flown that route with less than three reroutes.

Short body Exterior Height: 8 ft 3 in Wing Span: 35 ft Length: 23 ft 2 in Mid body Exterior Height: 8 ft 4 in Wing Span: 36 ft 5 in Length: 24 ft 8 in Long body Exterior Height: 8 ft 4 in Wing Span: 36 ft 5 in Length: 26 ft 9 in courtesy of the completely infallible and never mistaken internet. (global air.com)

Why is it an hour of delays and diversions?

I have read my POH cover to cover no less than 12 times. I actually read a lot, and I’m pretty sure I understand my aircraft about as well as anyone can, but I still don’t know everything and I am ok with that… My POH says cooldown is 5min at 900rpm and taxi can be included. Is it necessary to suggest no one else reads the instructions or understands their aircraft? Condescension is a very ineffective means of persuasion.

I can only speak for myself, but I was not arguing the need to cool down the turbo. What I was saying that from landing phase, to taxi is usually at least 15 min and when I have stopped to cool down, the tit usually only rises at a certain point. Leaning can reduce this, but even at that point it’s a diminishing return. What I was saying is that after that period of default cool down, I don’t see the value of running the engine for any additional time when it only seeks to elevate or keep the temp static.

To remind everyone, you have to actually make your purchased through the smile.Amazon website, just picking the charity and using the regular app won’t make the contributions.

I didn’t notice the cars either…. That doesn’t look survivable…. I’m going to tell myself these things are like winning the power all or getting stuck by lightening.

I second both of these, I usually try to shut off as soon as possible after my taxi to the hangar. Sitting there idling never seemed to lower the temp significantly. It makes sense that landing phase is the coolest because of low power, rich mixture and high airflow.

I could understand the charge the first time they are scanned and digitized, but after that, all it is is a download. if you are ordering paper copies perhaps, but even then that’s pretty high.

You’re on the wrong forum! go here Www.beechtalk.com You’ll get lots of support there!!! But seriously, you have your mission defined, budget is the next consideration This has been a popular question lately. I would buy the newest, nicest Mooney you can afford, they are all great planes.

I think this is more hangar talk now than reality. There was a coking issue with the very first two years of acclaims that caused backpressure issues, that has long since been resolved and mid time top it is certainly not a rule. I would also submit that is completely a function of how the plane/engine is flown/treated. I have flown with people who have zero indication that they understand even the basic concept of an internal combustion engine, much less a turbo charged aircraft engine.

You’re going to get a lot of answers to that question, because it’s a little open ended. If I was buying the airplane, assuming it is flown regularly and the compression check is done properly, I would want to see nothing below the mid 60’s. That doesn’t mean something in the 50’s is unacceptable. But it would also be important to look at the logbooks to see if anything lower was a trend or an anomaly. I believed continentals “limit” for when it isn’t airworthy is the high 30’s. I actually saw this on a prebuy one time. Compression check revealed high 30’s on one cylinder They borescoped it, everything looked good so the guy took it up, ran it hard for 15 minutes, and it was making full power. He landed, rechecked and it was in the low 60’s. He has been flying the plane regularly for the last few years without changing a cylinder I personally believe some(not all) of these cylinder issues are overly cautious owners and A&P’s

I think for me it was just the shock of seeing how much traffic was actually out there, that I never really saw before. There is probably at a minimum of 30% of airspace( if not more) that you cannot see, no matter how close they are, nor how hard you look. good example was that Malibu and 172( maybe a 150) that ran in to each other on approach. High wing under a low wing… The OP was asking for recommendations, there are very good reasons to have Adsb in and out, it’s easier to see on your primary navigation device than an iPad or iPhone, seeing traffic and being seen by traffic is inarguably safer. The tail beacon obviously does what it advertises for most buyers, it just doesn’t do much. It doesn’t upset me that some don’t agree with my recommendation. I also don’t love the fact that Garmin is somewhat monopolizing the industry, but their stuff works, and the support is good. I doubt seriously garmin stopping support for products that are 30 years old is a nefarious plot to force people to upgrade, they are a business and probably like to make money, and at some point most electronic devices are too old for reasonable support. That being said, I’m sure the market will be ripe with working replacements as other people upgrade for most of us posting here’s natural lives.

More often than not, the cost of litigation ends up the biggest expense. Giant paydays for things like this are not as frequent as one would think. Even an ironclad agreement will never prevent that. I’m not suggesting a waiver is a bad idea, or that it wouldn’t protect you from paying out an award. But it most certainly will offer no protection from litigation and the costs associated. The only guaranteed winner in any legal incursion is an attorney.

Traffic & weather.

I didn’t purchase one, and I wouldn’t. A plane I fly regularly has one and it’s been a problem. It works intermittently without explanation, the app says it’s working fine but it isn’t. Is it cheaper? Yes. Does it work for most people? Apparently. Would I recommend it? No. I do not like flying without traffic, an additional 4 or 5k is a rounding error in ownership costs, especially for the benefits it provides. I’m glad the uavionics products work for those here who bought them, my experience is not good. To each their own.