Schllc

I can tell you that the pilot side door is grossly over rated. the larger size door is nice, and I would have been tickled to just make the existing door the size of the ultra door. It took me months to stop entering from the passenger side after buying. It’s just another set of hardware to break, and another door to leak air and make noise I agree that the money would have been much better spent on increasing UL. My understanding is that all the existing flight data supports more Legal UL, but the pucks can’t take the drop test. Adding 2-300 pounds of UL, a larger passenger door, and better marketing would have been timed perfectly for this run up of GA. It’s real easy to say what should have happened now, but I’m not the only one who thinks the landing gear was where the focus should have been...

I cant argue about the lifespan or reliability of any battery, but what i can attest to is that when they fail, it is almost always immediately and completely. It has been like that in my cars and for the two airplane batteries that failed. Start fine, stop, two hours later go to start, barely enough juice to run the buzzer..... If it were me and they were 5-6 years old, I would absolutely change them, simply because I would prefer to waste a year of use than get stuck somewhere. I don't think either decision would be "wrong", just a preference of the type of inconvenience you find more acceptable.

I understand, the coking issue was caused by the lower breather pipe becoming occluded, not the top pipe. at least that was how it was explained to me.

There are two SB’s which were to address the coming issue, one is regular inspections , the other is a welded modification of the exhaust SB m20-319. this one eliminates the need for recurring inspections.

Pretty much has to be repaired where it is right? I’m not sure that would get a ferry permit, much less anyone willing to try a new fly it.... (Edited to announce sarcasm in above....) naples air center or Rexair, both are crazy busy right now so I don’t envy this guy. probably best to try and get a new wing.

That’ll buff right out.

Slick!

The ultra moved the mfd to the right enough to put the mid continent in the center of the panel. not sure why this couldn’t be done on the acclaim and ovationGX if someone wanted to pay for the panel to be recut. I have had a screen failure in Imc in my ovation. I ended up getting into the right seat to fly and land. It’s visible from the left seat but very uncomfortable to use as a primary.

I’m at Kapf so it may be a little far for me to do right now, but thanks for the generous offer.

Most used piston planes seem to at least keep up with inflation with regard to values, as long as they are maintained and not damaged. They seem to sell pretty close to what you pay for them with adjustments for upgrades or use. If financing isn’t the limitation, I’d say buy the newest , most capable plane you could afford that suits your mission. turbos, require more frequent oil changes and a nominal amount more to maintain, but you’re going faster all the time too so it’s merely a trade off. im in the camp of once you have a turbo you don’t want to go back. I enjoy the options it provides me, and it’s worth the trade off for me. the bravo has really seen values rise since the pandemic. while I haven’t owned one, And only have a few hours in bravos, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one. the ovation is a very capable plane as well and either is a fine choice.

Nothing new to report. I haven’t had an opportunity for another ,one flight. I did check my speeds with the stratus and it checks out so I don’t believe it’s instrumentation. Hoping to fly formation with a friend to see if they can see something hanging out there...

Nope. I’m a donating member and I donated again. Seemed to make the ads worse.

Why are the ads popping up all over the place? im a donating member...

It’s a large discretionary purchase of an asset that is completely unnecessary for probably 90% of the people that own them. They are also very expensive to own, even if they just sit there. This is always a recipe for volatility, because when the economy goes south people cut these things first because they are a no brainer. One of my first very wealthy clients told me something years ago that stuck. It was said in the context of real estate but is applicable here as well. He said don’t buy anything you can’t afford to hold for five years if the world goes to hell. It was good advice, and has served me well.

Couldn’t agree with this more. Unless you have to sell the plane in duress, once the initial depreciation occurs the sales prices of an airplane remains relatively static (barring damage history or corrosion). If it’s nominally updated, and we’ll cared for they don’t really lose value. Look at what a 1980 J model sold for in 1980 and what they sell for today. The real “cost” is storing, maintaining, insuring and flying. If you factor in everything including training, over almost eight years of ownership, I have probably spent close to the entire cost of my first plane, but I sold that first plane for 10k more than I paid for it... buying is the cheap and easy part, owning will bite you hard if you are pushing the envelope of what you can really afford.

I don’t believe any damage will occur as a result of doing it either way, and here is why I was so easily convinced... No other piece of machinery with an alternator as simple as a riding mower, or as complicated as a 500k rolls Royce, even has a switch to turn off the alternator, much less require you to utilize such an isolation, and their systems are arguably no less complex or sensitive. There are voltage regulators, and fuses/breakers for surges, just like our planes. The alternators on our planes are no different than cars or boats, most don’t even start producing power at all until a certain rpm. i don’t believe that a plane, at least one designed for an all electric system, is vulnerable in this way at startup, mostly because if it was, it would be just as vulnerable at power setting changes. I don’t really want to sound like I’m arguing, I’m not the poh is the final say, I’m willing to bet this is a holdover from older days, and procedural to check output, not to prevent damage. I just can’t really see any logical reason the system would be at risk either way, and it’s easy to see if it’s producing power while running as your positive draw declines after startup. Maybe one of the electrical engineers here can chime in with a more thorough explanation. That being said, while I always used the procedure in the poh until I was advised otherwise.....I am probably going to go back to that now just to be on the safe side.

Yes, I am aware of the poh, and this is how I did it as well, until two very well known Mooney A&P’s told me it should always be started with the alternator switch in the on position. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve run into a contradiction... Is there a mechanical/electrical reason for this, or is it just procedural?

Dale, that was my first plane! I think I have an extra set of keys I found. if you want them, PM me an address. I was always told to start with the alternator switch on, not to turn it on after starting....

Yes, I went and looked at that one at air mart in Kentucky. it was a really nice looking bird. You obviously had bad plugs, did you have any issue with starting?

Bump and figures out the brand.

Worth every single cent of it too! I have an hour+ dual in a p51 and the same in a p40. it was the two first models I built growing up and #1 bucket list item for me. It was the biggest thrill of my life and anyone who passes up the opportunity is really missing out. Yolo...

I flew back to the birthplace of my baby last week to have the flap issue the ultra’s have been plagued with rectified...The Mooney factory has figured out a fix for any of you still struggling, and I’d advise you to contact them if you need if fixed... now to the real issue.... I had to manually move the flaps from the down position on my first flight in the plane to get to the factory and I noticed that the speeds were way off of all the other acclaims I have flown. I attributed it to the fact that the flaps may have been a bit draggy, and was expecting the flight home to be a joyous occasion. However, the return flight it is still WAY below what I would expect. I know that tks birds are a bit slower than AC birds and yet a bit slower compared to to AC acclaims, I’ve owned them all.... It is about 15-20 knots off at all altitudes from my previous experience. Fuel flows, MP, and rpms are all where they should be, just not getting the speed I should be and I am at a loss at where to start for something this large. No dramatic tendencies when I go hands off in level flight. Slight roll to the right, but nothing alarming. I also tried laying into the rudder each way in cruise to see if I picked up a little speed there either way and no joy. I did switch from pitot to static and saw a 10 knot jump but there is always a noticeable delta there... i am really perplexed at where to look.

For an update... I don’t know exactly what was causing the problem but the system, kept reverting to standby, and discriminating traffic rather than active and unrestricted. I could change the settings, and sit there and after a minute it would just cycle back. I shut down the system. Unseated all the connectors and LRU’s that I could access without taking out the headliners, and reseated them. when I booted back up it all seems to stay as set, and two flights later it’s still working... I guess these ancient wagon wheel/buggy whip devices just need a kick sometimes. Its the price we pay for flying antiques with no support... Now to tackle the real problem... something amiss with my speed.....

During those years there is a chance I flew in one of your birds. Where were you stationed?