afward

Ordered. @Yetti thanks for the reminder.

@larryb You make a fine point about the test flight. Of course, that takes me back to the problem of getting to the bird to check it out... I did just receive the last ten years of logbooks, and I'm told he has the rest but hasn't digitized them yet. I'll probably spend some time tomorrow going through what he sent.

Yeah, I'd seen your location before and thought we might arrange a meeting sometime if I ever got around to a real introduction... Didn't realize there were so many Mooneys over there, though. That said, I know at least one SUZ-based short body and have been in it for a couple flights (not PIC). My wife has also sat in it, though the front seats were out at the time for annual. Are any of the Mooney pilots there current CFIs? SUZ doesn't have a Mooney CFI (the club has four or five CFIs, but none are Mooney-specific).

Put it in a cargo plane. I'll see myself out...

If we move forward with an offer and PPI, I certainly will go to the plane to fly in it. At the point I know we're moving forward I'll also search out a CFI for transition training. It'll probably be more than just the minimum hours just so I know I'm comfortable with it. We'll see how it works out... My impression is that Mooneys, in general, don't tolerate sloppiness like certain other types... Not a bad thing, IMO. I don't doubt I'll get pretty good at going around before I get good at not needing to.

Wow, lots of good commentary here. I have a lot of thinking to do. For what it's worth, the primary mission is "Take the wife on weekend getaways (no more than 3.5 hours away), vacations, and family visits". Uncommonly we'll have our 6' tall son with us, but that shouldn't be too difficult (probably shorter flight segments, though). Our daughter probably won't ever go with us (college bound in August, and has a bit of an aversion to flying in general). I'm sure I'll also do my fair share of $100 hamburgers, sightseeing, fly-ins, informal pilot meet-ups, etc. Thanks, everyone!

Looking at the map, I see a couple people that might help. I'll reach out to them privately. I started a separate thread to discuss the plane itself (seemed appropriate to split the discussions). It's over in the vintage topic if you'd like to jump in there. I'd certainly appreciate any advice or commentary anyone can provide.

@tigers2007 I forgot to ask him when we talked. It did sound like he flies pretty regularly during the warmer parts of the year, so I don't imagine the overhauls are ancient. @BKlott I'd seen that history already. It's old enough I'm not really concerned, though certainly that would reduce the buyer pool at resale time (should I purchase this one). I did ask about corrosion and his answer was that he hadn't seen any on the front portion of the cage, but that I'd certainly want to have it all looked over during the PPI. Since I plan on a PPI anyway, that's a fair answer. @NJMac I agree, but my target price limit currently doesn't support much that has an IFR GPS and doesn't have a run-out engine. I'll have to discuss that with the household CFO...

@Hank KRST in Rochester, MN is correct. @carusoam I'd thought of having OasisAero in WIllmar do the PPI, and looking for someone to do transition training was already on my to-do list. The hardest part seemed to be getting in-person with the thing and having someone who could fly it safely to help me check it out. All that said, your point is not lost on me; finding something I can reasonably get to (and back!) in a day seems wise...

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20C&listing_id=2327968&s-type=aircraft It seems like a decent deal and I've briefly talked with the owner. He says it just needs IFR cert (and probably an altimeter overhaul) to be fully IFR, which I'll need to have since I'd like to start working on pretty rapidly. Feel free to reply privately. Thanks!

Well, we might've found our starter plane: A 1963 M20C (I'll ask for comments in the vintage forum here). I'm obviously a little excited, but unfortunately I'm also not current and don't have ready access to get that way quickly. So I'm in a bit of a pickle: How do I test-fly and airplane I'm not proficient enough to fly? My home airport is KSUZ, and the plane in question is at KRST. What would be your suggestions for handling this situation? I can drive there (26 hours round-trip!), but I'll still need someone who knows what to look at to actually check it out... Thanks!

Having just watched Matt's "horses on the runway" video, I think it's safe to say he doesn't sync audio with action in all cases (see the last landing; his commentary down final has no correlation to what he's doing, spoken or otherwise, yet it was obviously recorded over the intercom). Almost certainly one should take his videos as pure entertainment and edited as such. I think that's unique to Matt's videos; None of the other pilot vloggers I've seen record commentary while airborne without also showing the action during said commentary. None of this is intended to comment on Matt's ADM skills; I've been uncomfortable for him a few times... Of course, I'm not IFR trained (forget certified) and have a tiny fraction of his experience, so maybe that's purely on me.

@nels I've always used Android devices for my personal smartphones and am a big fan of the Pixel line (I still use a 1st-gen Pixel). They don't run Foreflight (it's developed by Apple snobs), but Garmin Pilot is nearly as good and there are several other options that have their own strengths & weaknesses (I've used DroidEFB and tried Avare). The downside is that Android "feels" different enough from iOS that a switch will take you some time to get used to. You might also find you don't like it. I happen to like the Android approach to things, but I'm a control-freak software developer, so YMMV... May I recommend that you consider an iPad Mini for flying apps and a "not flagship level" phone as your personal comm device / camera (iPhone SE, Pixel 2, Galaxy S8, etc.)?

It's not. The mobile-side chips to support 5G won't be mature for another year or so, leading to reduced battery life and higher acquisition costs for anything released before mid-2020 (at the earliest). Very similar to the first-generation LTE devices.

That's a fantastic attitude to have, and one I think most aviation vendors could stand to learn / learn better. No doubt that is correct. Doesn't mean one should jump on a public forum to vent said frustration in a "don't buy [Company X]'s products" way. Present the facts, let the reader decide. It might turn out that one's experience is truly in the minority, in which case no harm will be done by presenting the facts. On the other hand, "bashing" the company may not turn out so well, for either side... Those are illustrative. The GTN issue is of course infamous, but the JPI squelch issue is a new one on me (admittedly a pretty low bar to reach). They did ultimately fix it (sorta), so there's that. That said, I'm sure more communication would've gone a long way.

I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I am, however, drawing a line between "rational discourse" and "irrational hating*". The whole point is that bashing is always an emotional, needlessly harmful, and otherwise pointless endeavor. Instead, present the facts and let the reader decide. * I really dislike "hating" here, but can't think of a better word offhand. It conveys the idea well enough, so I'm keeping it.

I wise person once told me, "In business, perception is reality." Most people expect a $20k purchase to be handled with more care than a $20 purchase, so for most purposes there certainly is a difference. Of course, that's the customer side. On the vendor side, it's completely different and I agree with you: There should be no difference in the care given, regardless of the price point.

It's one thing to talk about an issue with a vendor's product and the challenges of getting it resolved. it is another thing entirely to declare said vendor undeserving of our business. The former is factual discussion, the latter is just bashing*. At least I think that's what @carusoam was getting at. * For argument's sake let's assume the vendor in question is at least trying to be a good vendor.

D'oh! I never knew the Monroy STC holder was a member here. So that makes more sense now. I thought you were talking about some unpublished concept you'd come up with and gotten 337'ed somehow. Mea culpa!

Ha, if you say so. I'm not quite educated enough on the intricacies of the timing of each "extra range" STC and your solution to really determine for myself who gets priority on that. I do know aviators and manufacturers have been trying to figure out various clever tricks to get more range since flying distances became a thing, so "do it on a Mooney" may not be a very good qualifier with which to declare it "novel" or "a new concept". Maybe it is, in which case I think most of us would highly appreciate if you posted a copy of the documentation so we can learn from such a "visionary" idea. Edit: You edited your statement from an objective statement (mine is "first") to a potentially subjective statement ("achievable, elegant"). My above paragraph doesn't really apply to the new text. What are your criteria for "achievable" and "elegant" that qualify your solution but not the existing STC solutions? Not cool changing the text like that. It breaks the flow of the conversation and can lead to large misunderstandings.

Jose, what is novel about your solution? And what new concepts are you proffering to us mere mortals? Seems like you're just re-treading ground the manufacturers have looked at 1000's of times and arrived at the same general set of solutions. In other words, are you sure of your various solutions' superiority because they are visionary, or because of hubris?

@moodychief I'll have to see if we can arrange for that sometime. I don't have any idea when, though.

It may be a mistake, or it may not. Since I'm not actively in the market to purchase, it's probably not worth arguing with her right now. That said, I do have one question: Is the footwell the same on a mid-body as it is on a short-body?

@carusoam that's a good point. Once I'm back to looking I'll give that option some serious thought. Thanks!

Yeah, I saw that on the other thread... Can't bring myself to listen to it.