Schllc

My first mooney instructor, when I was a 40hr ppl and preparing to buy my plane taught me the three mile 900’ rule on final. 300’ per mile descent keeps you perfectly set, and you control altitude with throttle this won’t work in a long body with the gear up unless you slow down to 80 knots before you enter the pattern. It’s impossible to bleed speed Fast enough on final this way if the gear is up. With (so far) 600 mooney hours ive, thankfully never come close to a gear up because the speeds don’t jive with my procedure. I only have a few hours in a mid body k, but found it to be as slippery as an ovation or acclaim in that phase of flight. I honestly don’t understand how one could forget because the darn thing just won’t get to landing speed with the gear up. I hope that doesn’t sound cocky, I mean I’ve made my share of mistakes too, just not that one, and I believe it’s because the plane acts really weird to me with the gear up. if something “feels” wrong about an approach, there usually is something wrong. I try to listen to that, and hope I always do.

We have all done the training(hopefully). Simulated engine out, short approach. I find myself, especially when I am alone, doing the calculations on trips, by saying, “if my engine failed, right now, where would I divert, how should I manage the energy? I look at ForeFlight glide ring, I consult the manual, but I have never actually flown my Mooney without an engine ..... i had one engine out in a Cessna during my ppl with an instructor. It was in the pattern, so it was almost a non event, but I can tell you it was radically different from simulated, when the engine is close to idle. I’ve often wondered how that would differ in my Mooney for real. The one thing that concerns me is estimating the approach, I mean you only get one. How do you guys train for this? Has anyone experienced this?

I had read that article some time ago, very good explanation. I understand comparing automobiles is not completely apples to apples, which is why I said it was anecdotal. I have also followed the guidelines for oil changes with and without a turbo on the three I have owned. It’s just not worth saving $200 to see. My point was merely for reflection because while I know a car engine burns much cleaner, for a 15k oil change at an average of 30mph is 455 hours. So does the airplane engine run 18x dirtier than an automobile? Perhaps.. the conclusion of the article was also interesting, stating that the vast majority of damage from the corrosive elements was due to inactivity, not simply their presence in the oil. I took this to heart, and always purchased planes that had been regularly flown. In fact it’s been the biggest reason I haven’t been able to find my Aerostar, almost all of the ones I’ve seen fly 3-10 hours a year. That scares me a lot more than oil change intervals.

When I was about 12 I recall talking to my uncle, who was an eclectic fella in the 1970’s, I remember him telling me about sending in oil samples because he was participating in a study for synthetic oil testing for cars, and had been for years. He explained to me that the 2500 mile auto change was unnecessary, and he was going 10-15k between oil changes. not sure why this stuck with me, but it did, and when I bought my first new Toyota truck in 1987, i went 15k between changes. I put over 200k on that truck. Since then I have owned around 50+ vehicles of my own, and for my company over 35 years, and I would guess logged over 10 million miles in all those (not just me driving obviously), all with the same oil change regiment. Mostly Toyota and GM, with a few fords and Isuzu’s, and one Mercedes sprinter, gas and diesel. I have never once had an engine failure, or required a rebuild, and almost all of those vehicles saw 200k mikes before I sold or traded them, a few over 300k and one with 500k that I still own. Somewhat anecdotal, but I have noticed most maintenance items with planes are already excessively conservative, given the consequences of failures it’s difficult to argue that bent... My point is I believe oil change guidelines are predicated on the worst possible conditions, at all times, which is seldom the case. That being said, more frequently can’t possibly hurt.

Hi all, my g1000 mooney ovation needs to go to KGGG in the next 10 days for annual and a waas upgrade. looking for either a plane to fly back from there to south florida, or perhaps a qualified Mooney pilot to take my plane there for me. i would prefer to avoid commercial airlines at the moment. I am a 600hr ifr Mooney pilot with experience in mid and long body, NA and turbo. if someone out there is in need let’s see if we can help each other. thanks

All this which list and no one says turbine? Pressurize it, fix the landing gear to get the fuel, and then put on a turbine. I mean if we are wishing, right.....?

Maybe it’s part of how one was trained from the beginning, I always knew I was going to have a plane with retractable gear so gumps started in some of my first lessons leading to ppl. once I got a mooney (long body experience only), I quickly found that the only way I could get to approach speeds without starting to slow down 50 miles away was to put the gear down. One of my early instructors taught me a method used by airline pilots to arrange your approach at a 3 mild 300’ per mile descent to stay on the gp. speed down to gear extension, by 3 miles, first notch of flaps,second notch of flaps and check progress by distance and altitude. This is nearly impossible to do correctly with gear up, unless you work hard. Hence it doesn’t feel “normal”. Pay attention to the gut.. I can’t for the life of me, understand how one slows down enough to these speeds without the Gear down. Maybe the older, four cylinder models behave differently but in a long body I find it very difficult.

I have owned both an ovation and an acclaim. the performance difference is notable. my mission is nearly the same as yours in distance, not terrain. the acclaim consistently reduced my trip by 30-45 minutes. speed and ability to minimize effects of headwinds at altitude. ownership was a little more expensive on the acclaim but, to me, worth it for the speed. After several hundred hours in an acclaim, it’s easy to see how people fly them incorrectly. descent profiling, and managing temps in climb and cruise requires a lot more attention than my ovation. Learn how to fly the TN properly and accept that a more complex engine requires more maintenance(more to break as well) and it’s not a problem. I miss my acclaim very much and wish I had never sold it, once youve had a turbo, it’s hard to go back. Fuel burn in terms of range is slightly lower in an acclaim, but with your mission, won’t matter much.

It’s pretty hard to argue the safety of a parachute.That is indisputable. Not that anyone asked, but here is my two cents.... My dad is an attorney and dove a mercury marquis for 30 years. Most of his clients were farmers and he drove in the fields for years, and never got his car stuck. One day he told me he was going to buy a pickup truck, and I suggested four wheel drive. He told me he didn’t need four wheel drive, because he had been driving a two wheel drive for all those years without a problem. I said, but in a truck, you will make different decisions. He didn’t agree and bought a two wheel drive. He has been stuck six times in three years. A parachute cannot possibly be a bad thing to have as an option... Unless, it causes you to make decisions you would otherwise not make.

Filing IFR can be a burden at times at Mooney altitudes, especially in south Florida where you talk to act almost non stop. makes it impossible to have a conversation with someone flying with you. however, the benefits come when you least expect it, and can be overwhelmingly good. I filed ifr and flew to west palm one day to pick up a friend, bluebird day without a cloud in the sky, no ceilings in the forecast and clear metars at destination and departure. didn’t even shut the engine down to stop, they hopped in and off we went. 15 min later, in full imc, I lost ahrs, autopilot, traffic, horizon, and hsi. Not fun flying compass only during turbulence, backup horizon in about the worst possible location on the entire panel, and no slip... there was a LOT of traffic all around prior to this and I had not filed ifr, expecting great conditions, which by the way, they were departing airport and at my destination. picking up an ifr, in the air, under partial panel imc is something I hope to never do again. I file 99% of the time. just personal preference, because you just never really know.

I’ve got 400+ hours in mooney’s and about 50 in a cirrus. the fuel burn and speed is not even close. This isn’t anecdotal, it’s real world in an ovation, acclaim, sr22 and sr22 turbo. Short and long trips, all at or close to gross weights. The position that people buying an airplane for fuel economy is only true to a degree that it feels wasteful, not unaffordable. They are two very different machines, and attract two different types of people. you may as well compare a pineapple and a screwdriver. Mooney people are generally romantic flyers and cirrus are people who love tech, or bought solely for the parachute. This isn’t universal nor the only attributes but is probably the majority. Read the posts, it easy to see. Mooney people love their planes. Cirrus people love to talk about their tech. Neither is better or worse, just is.

It’s pretty clear who is dominating in sales and marketing. mooney is, and always has been a niche market. i would also say that all aviation is a niche market. I have completed the type training to required to fly the cirrus and was underwhelmed. It’s louder inside than my Mooney, slower and i personally feel the training focuses way too much on avionics and less on pilotage. My preference is the Mooney, but I understand why people like the cirrus. By cirrus’s own admission they converted a whole sect of people who would otherwise not have been pilots much less owners. Take what you will from that statement. my only knock/concern about the plan is the composite. with a metal airplane, damage is obvious and easy to repair, not so much in the composite, and the modulus of elasticity of metals is well defined and understood. once composite is compromised something that looks fine may or may not be, and it has zero structural value where compromised, unlike metal. They will just not last the way metal will. maybe this is a moot point. Time will tell.

Sure, wasn’t questioning the veracity. My comment was speaking to the difficulty of that feat.

I’ve owned two with a/c. I have heard people talk about the ac not working, but that has not been my experience and I live in south Florida. What I have found is that some people forget to turn the vent off. If you forget this, the ac works well on the ground but as soon as you start moving it mixes with outside air and doesn’t work at all, but to say it’s worthless isn’t accurate. That being said, it costs you three knots and 100+ lbs of useful. If you’re training or doing air work in a hot climate I wouldn’t buy one without it, otherwise... I love the g1000 and have a hard time imagining owning one without it, but have heard good things about the 750 and g3 and wouldn’t be averse to trying them. The non waas g1000 is going to be somewhat of an issue eventually because it’s tied to the airframe, but adding a 100 or so feet to a minimum really isn’t an issue for the majority of people. If I had any suggestions, (not sure I’m qualified to give advice), I’d say find the cleanest, most frequently flown version, and tidiest logs of what you can afford. Fly with the owner and see how they treat the plane, and do a prebuy with someone good.

The biggest elephant in the room preventing affordability is regulation. $100k for a circa 1940 technology six cylinder air cooled engine, or the absolutely insane cost of the simplest of parts is 100% a function of regulation and litigation. Look at certified vs non certified avionics prices. Demand is pummeled by this. I really thought the part 23 rewrite would have a bigger quicker impact. Regulation needs to be radically changed to stimulate real investment, innovation and then demand.

Yes, mixed those two up but same point. No other pressurized single option.

Full disclosure, I am a Mooney fan at heart, am completely biased and in no way impartial.... The premise is logical, however in the grand scheme of things I don’t believe it’s a big enough factor. The phrase “best plane for your mission” resonated when I took my instructor and a friend in a 172 to fly to look at a commander that was a three hour drive away. Well, with a 45knt headwind in the Cessna, full tanks and two passengers it took us right at two hours to get there! I knew that day it had to be a Mooney. My first plane was an ovation 3. I got it with barely 40 hours total under my belt, when I didn’t even have my ppl. I finished my ppl with 62 hours in the 172 and 6 in the Ovation. I went straight into training for my IFR in the g1000 ovation. The speed of things, and the avionics took me longer to get a grip on than the characteristics of the plane. The Mooney really is a pilots plane, it flies much nicer than the G5 SR22, or the 172. I quickly discovered that roughly 95% of the negative things people said about mooneys were incorrect, and from people who were just repeating things they heard, not from personal experience. I read somewhere recently that what cirrus did is take an entire class of people who would otherwise not even aspire to be pilots, and convert them to owners, simply by convincing them the platform was simpler and safer. Kudos for their market insight and successful campaign, but I feel sorry for pilots whose “go to” is a parachute before skill and good decisions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Cirrus or the parachute, or even Cirrus pilots, I’m sure most of them are fine pilots. I just think that a parachute can lure people into making decisions that they would otherwise not make. When I took the cirrus transition course I was really taken aback by the focus of the training. All through the course the instructor scolded me for not engaging the autopilot sooner after takeoff, or during an approach. I realize my autopilot is a critical piece of equipment, but when you are on an approach and don’t understand what the AP is doing, should you spend time figuring out the avionics or fly the plane? I feel like teaching the autopilot vs the plane may make a lot of people comfortable, but feels like it may not be equipping them completely. The first barrier to entry is price, second is complexity, third is safety. Cirrus made it “feel” simple, and makes it “feel” safer, price didn’t seem to affect them.

i wonder if reviving the M22 concept wouldn’t be something to distinguish themselves. there is no real viable pressurized single other than the matrix, and I’m not sure I would fly in one of those much less own one. A high performance 4 person pressurized piston, would have no real rival. I was told the useful load, has more to do with landing gear than anything else, not sure its true, but plausible none the less.

Why are things always described in amu’s? I'm not sure what these are, and why not just refer to things in actual dollars? I'm also curious what you mean by “extensive”. Isn’t that just an analog for expensive, or do you mean it takes years but doesn’t cost a lot? The question is somewhat rhetorical, I imagine if it was possible/practical someone would have already done it.

Why not an A, B, D, E, or J? TSIO-550-A 360 hp (268 kW) at 2600 rpm, dry weight 442 lb (200 kg) plus two turbochargers of 28.2 lb (12.8 kg) each. TSIO-550-B 350 hp (261 kW) at 2700 rpm, dry weight 442 lb (200 kg) plus two turbochargers of 28.2 lb (12.8 kg) each. Similar to the TSIO-550-A except with a 12 quart sump, sonic venturii removed and the two stage fuel pump replaced by a single stage fuel pump.[2] TSIO-550-E 350 hp (261 kW) at 2700 rpm, dry weight 442 lb (200 kg) plus two turbochargers of 28.2 lb (12.8 kg) each. Similar to TSIO-550-C with the oil sump and maximum continuous power rating of the TSIO-550-B. Turbocharged & FADEC models[edit TSIOF-550-D 350 hp (261 kW) at 2600 rpm, dry weight 558 lb (253 kg) plus two turbochargers of 35.2 lb (16.0 kg) each. Similar to the TSIOF-550-J except the exhaust system and low voltage harness. TSIOF-550-J 350 hp (261 kW) at 2600 rpm, dry weight 558 lb (253 kg) plus two turbochargers of 35.2 lb (16.0 kg) each. Similar to the TSIO-550-E except for FADEC fuel injection and ignition control, turbochargers, tapered cylinder barrel fins, oil sump and capacity, maximum continuous speed and manifold pressure rating.

I know it records it if there is a card in the top slot of the mfd. not sure if it does with out that.

I will fly it a while as is, that’s not really an option as the aviation world doesn’t move fast when it comes to engines. im sure it runs well, it comes down to confidence. If I flew a plane for the last 1000 hours till tbo, and was happy, I’d have no problem going beyond tbo because of confidence. buying an engine with two prop strikes, and not really knowing how it was flown by previous owners makes that confidence a little hard to obtain. I don’t want to spend money like I have it to waste, because I don’t, but I also don’t want to have a nagging fear that keeps me from hopping in my plane any time I want. maybe I fly 10-20 hours and it comes. Won’t really know that until it happens, expect the best and prepare for the worst.

Hi all, Thought i would lean on the experience of the group here again. i am thinking about an engine upgrade. i wrote to Continental for a quote for a factory reman and they referred me to AirPower who just sent me a quote for $86k for a reman and $107 for a factory new engine. is this appropriate or are there other options? I personally don't really have a problem with a field rebuild, and plan to fly it for at least a few years after, if not more. Lastly, is there any real benefit or performance to the Victor engines? They don't seem to be any more than the factory ones but the options for balancing, stress relieving, the matched machining, and the corrosion resistance for where i live. Thoughts?