Schllc

Humidity?

Flight aware will track every flight of a plane that has adsb. If it’s filed, it will usually have a “filed” speed, and would show a route in the form of a white dashed line. if it’s a car flight it just shows a track. This is of course, assumes the planes owner hasn’t blocked the tail number. this flight looks like the pilot filed.

I’d go most anywhere within 250 miles of south florida. most things seem to be available around this neck of the woods.

Have him fly in both back to back. if he is a pilot there will be little selling required.

Somewhat aligns with what I was quoted for the engine. I rounded up for all the other, “while we are here’s”, as well as the unforeseen. Better to set an expectation that leaves room for pleasant surprises. But that’s just me, to each their own...

I have never had the pleasure of changing one, so I can’t say for sure, but from what I’ve been told it’s pretty close.

Stec has had this one three times. I’ve owned two planes with this autopilot and never had these kinds of issues. Something is causing the head and trim servo to go out, and replacing them buys time, but obviously doesn’t address the root of the problem.

Lots of people claim the ac’s don’t work well in the Mooney. I have owned four with ac and that hasnt been my experience at all. Two friends of mine with ac, that I have flown with, were not aware the vent was on while they were running the ac, which you won’t notice on the ground much, but once you’re moving it mixes outside air and the ac feels like it isn’t working. once I showed them this, they stopped complaining. the useful on 809BW is 840ish, which isn’t bad for both fiki and ac. It’s also about the UL of the ultra acclaim with one or the other. the autopilot in that one however, is a real problem child. Look at the logs... I suspect wire chaffing somewhere. Really no reason for that to be out as many times as it is in the logs, and ironically, as the plane sits today it’s out for repair again. She also had light hail damage on the ailerons. otherwise it was in very fair shape for its age. Only other consideration is the time on the engine. That’s 100k right around the corner...

The model I’m looking at is a gx model with g1000. It’s a 2005. it has the stec55. I think I read once there is only one Bravo out there with a gfc700. I’ve never seen one and I have a shopping addiction to long body mooneys, so it seems plausible. no waas either, but the upgrade isnt 40k nor is it hard to come by parts. I’ve done two, and anytime i look for the Gia63w’s I can find it them. They aren’t on the shelf at every avionics shop, but a little effort turns them up. I inspected it today in person. It’s a nice and clean plane. the stec has been out of the plane six times, including at this moment for head or trim motor servos. I didn’t have any issue with the two I owned, so not sure what that’s about. Very minor hail damage on the ailerons only, and it’s hard to see with the paint color. also one of the few planes that finish looked better in person than photos. It’s usually the other way around. one owner and hangar kept.

My experience with Monroy tanks was just get used to not really knowing exactly how much fuel you have unless you plan to fill them up the day before you leave and check the next morning. The poh has a supplement telling you how to interpret the wing gauges, and while I understand the methodology, it was still a bit unnerving to me at times. while I don’t want to make it sound like I had no idea how much, it was more of a suspicion that I was inaccurate. I’ve kept a fuel log since I started flying and have always documented what my totalizer said I burned vs what the plane took when I filled up, (until the Monroys, I always kept my tanks topped off). Three of my planes were usually within a gallon of calculated and actual. With the monroys I kind of gave up, and just started deducting 5 gallons from whatever I thought I had for planning purposes. That being said, it’s not a knock on the extended capacity, it’s just a fact you have to get acclimated to, and is a trade off for the additional range.

I just signed a contract on a Bravo. I’ve reviewed the logs thoroughly. 1500tt half the cylinders have been replaced, exhaust was removed and sent for repair at 1200 hours. Pretty good maintenance at factory and Maxwell except for the last few years. any bravo or tks specific issues I should be looking for or concerned about or look for? im pretty versed on “Mooney”, and normal aging airplane issues but have no experience with Bravo’s or Lycoming engines. All four I have owned have been continentals. any advice would be appreciated.

I was wondering if from the hundreds of years of Mooney owners someone may know if, and if not why, there hasn’t been an stc for HP increase for the Lycoming in the bravo? the engine is derated from 350hp, and actually produces that HP in other airframe applications. couldn’t they bump it to 325 in the Bravo? Aside from an approval of an STC sounding daunting given the bureaucracy of the FAA, I don’t know what’s involved but it’s a simple an inexpensive upgrade on the continental. Why isn’t that an option on the lycoming?

Not many that have that combo in those years here is one. I looked at logs and aside from some minor DH when the plane rolled off its chicks, or wasn’t chocked. logs seem suspicious until you see pics of incident. nothing burger. UL is little less than 750, but it’s your wishlist and I think very close to a fair price. https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/195760273/2000-mooney-m20r-ovation2-piston-single-aircraft

My understanding is that the gross weight challenge is a function of the gear limitations. Is the gear not able to withstand the weight, or the spar, or the airframe, all three? The fuselage and gear are chromoly tubing, and the spar extruded aluminum. Instant strength could be added by thickening the wall sizes of both, pivot points could also increase in diameter if necessary. The size and shape of all the components would remain static, at least in overall measurements to maintain clearance and tolerance. The additional weight would be minimal increase on the grand scale, and you wouldn’t have to redesign half the plane for longer, more complicated and expensive new gear. It seems so obvious that I’m sure it’s been ruled out for a reason, Im just curious to know why.

Couldn’t agree more. left for a trip with my family a few summers ago, and May failed shortly after takeoff. landed back at my field and priced out all the options. The plane was 12 years old, and the family didn’t enjoy the experience anymore than I did.... turned out if you bought two new mags, harness and plugs as a package is was only about $800 more than rebuilding the two mags The mechanic actually tried to talk me out of it, said it was all unnecessary. Perhaps it was, but I would do the same thing over again, every time. For me, an airplanes ignition source is no place to save a few sheckles.

I already clarified this, the plane has never been registered in another country. The plane is a little over a year old and I am the second owner. Perhaps new(er) planes all come with this type of elt.

I honestly don’t know anything more than I was told, which is that the elt must be programmed to the tail number, which required removing the unit and sending it to someone to update the new tail number and reinstall. the noaa registration is a separate thing than can be done online. the plane was new so there was no importing from another country.

Well, premier in ft laudersale removed my elt, sent it out, and reinstalled it, AND I had to update the registration with noaa. let’s just say if I were to find out they lied to me and this didn’t need to be done, I wouldn’t be surprised. But it’s what happened about three months ago, and I’m pretty sure it’s required.

The ELT and the transponder has to be reprogrammed for the correct tail number as well. This goes with log entries. I would go to the faa site and search for damage history by serial number. It will follow the plane this way regardless of the tail number. http://www.aviationdb.com/Aviation/AircraftQuery.shtm#SUBMIT

What did PBS quote you? Was it a Walter or a RR? How does that work, do they do the stc, or can you convert to experimental? I don’t think it will ever be “economically viable” but it sure as heck would be cool, and very little about GA is economically viable... it still baffles me that someone went through the effort and expense to do the conversion on a bonanza but no one has for a mooney. I mean their one claim to fame from the beginning was speed and efficiency. The UL on the bonanza makes it a two person airplane as well, but you don’t get the benefit of the sleek airframe, or the ability to carry 130 gal of fuel. nNeither will ever have mass appeal without coming out of the stratosphere in pricing, but I’d be willing to bet the Mooney would really be a rocket at 25k+ with a turbine... if I had the money to burn i would do it just to be the first. It would also be a rock solid way to distinguish the appeal from a cirrus, with turbine reliability.

That’s pretty cool! How’s that Mooney turboprop project coming?

The new style rocker switches tend to break pretty easily. I wouldn’t use them if it were me.

None of the four 550’s I have owned would idle as low as 500. All of them were high 7’s with one not really enjoying anything under 8. none of them would run on the ground idling as low as 500. Is 500rpm idle typical for the 550 in anyone else’s plane?

Ditto