skydvrboy

I don't. I use IAS and if I don't like the climb rate, CHT's, or Oil temps, I adjust accordingly.

I know each model is different, but for my F, Vx is 94 mph (82 kts) and Vy is 113 mph (98 kts) at sea level decreasing to 102 mph (89 kts). So that would make my initial cruise climb be 132. Seems a bit fast, so climb would be slow, but you'd cover a lot of ground getting there.

When parking outside, especially in the winter, I'll rotate my prop vertical. If not, water will pool in the spinner. In the summer, it just throws water all over the place, but in the winter, turns to ice and makes for one really out of balance prop. I used to rotate it counter clockwise (facing the prop) because I didn't want to damage anything turning it backwards. An old A&P saw me and asked what I was doing (using more colorful language). Informed me that I wouldn't hurt anything turning it backwards, so now that is my SOP when parking outside with rain in the forecast.

I definitely see value in the CiES fuel measuring system. Anytime your fuel consumption is different in-flight than what you originally planned, you have no idea how much fuel you have with the old stick method. Our local priest, with over 50 years of safe flying experience, just ran out of gas and landed in a bean field last Thursday at the end of a long cross country. He sticked his tanks and calculated that he had 45 minutes reserve in an Archer. When flying, he flew lower than planned and was burning fuel faster than he thought. Had he had accurate gauges in-flight, he may not have landed 1/2 mile short of the airport. What I don't see any value in is a $10 plastic tube instead of a free wooden stick. Both give you the exact same information with the same accuracy. Likely more accuracy with the wooden stick if you calibrate it yourself vs buying a pre-calibrated plastic tube or using someone else's measurements.

How long are those two small boys going to stay small? For 4 people, the G, F, & J models are ideal, each with their respective price points though. That said, in your situation, any would work fine. The C or E models just might not be your forever plane when those two strapping boys are in high school on the basketball team. If I were in your shoes, I'd worry less about the model designation and more about finding the nicest plane you can that meets your budget and has the avionics features that you want.

Like @DualRatedFlyer I just completed my first year of ownership in an F model. The plane I bought was airworthy and in annual, but had been neglected, or as they say in real estate, it had deferred maintenance. I got it cheap and have already put over $10k just fixing the things that are needed to bring the maintenance up to date: tires, pucks, exhaust, fuel servo, engine mounts, etc. I've also logged over 100 hours in it while doing all those "upgrades." I doubt I'm too far upside down in it right now if I had to sell it, because I have focused on only eliminating the big negatives that made it so cheap in the first place. I may end up spending more in the long run by the time I get the plane improved to where I want it, but I will have had the use of it all those years too. So, buy the cheapest plane that is airworthy, fly the $#!& out of it, and put your skills to work keeping it airworthy. Finally, don't shy away from a C or E model, for you and 2 kids, there won't be enough difference in functionality to worry about.

Like @Yetti said, build it as you go by marking the line, adding the fuel, then subtracting to get your number. Although, I'd run a tank dry and then fill it completely to determine your actual capacity rather than going by the published 32 gallons. My F holds 33.2 gallons per side, give or take 1/10 of a gallon. I still use 32 gallons for making my stick, but I think it's valuable information to know. I personally don't particularly like the "add a few gallons at a time" method. It seems like it takes a while for the fuel to flow into the lower part of the tank. That gave me incorrect markings at the lower fuel levels where it is most important. I suppose that could be fixed with more patience, but the above method doesn't suffer from that inaccuracy. Also, try different woods if you have access to them. You will find that they react to the fuel differently. I found that cedar works really well because it changes colors dramatically showing exactly where your fuel level is. Whether the stick wicks the fuel up a bit or not is irrelevant if you calibrate your own stick rather than relying on making one off measurements. Your measurement will be off by the same amount as the mark that was made when you calibrated it. One more key that no one has directly mentioned, since the tank is sloped, make sure you take your measurement through the opening the same way. I used the center, but you could use the outside, inside, front, back, whatever. Just make sure you do it the same way every time.

Wow, that turned out VERY nice! Well done bonal.

Isn't this really the way you should land any plane, not just a Mooney? The way my instructor put it, "Aim for the runway and miss for as long as possible." I know I'm a pretty new pilot, but in my 400 or so landings, I can only think of two landings where I bounced, once before I got my license and once in the Mooney. Float, yes; balloon, occasionally; bounce, nope.

There are a lot of complicated procedures out there. Mine are very simple. I run the engine to 1000 - 1200 RPM and shut down with mix. Cold start: don't touch throttle, mix full rich, fuel pump on (3-5 seconds summer, 5-7 seconds winter), crank, fires on 1st or 2nd blade. Hot start: don't touch anything, crank, fires on 5-6 blades, slowly advance mix I will say it was a lot different before the A&P properly adjusted my idle mixture.

I nearly got myself in trouble once early on with the Mooney when I went into an airport solo and picked up two adults (400+ lbs) who both wanted to ride in the back. I calculated that I was within weight and balance, but forgot to retrim before takeoff. I had a surprisingly early takeoff at low speed and it took everything I had to push the nose down until I could get trimmed up right. I know that doesn't exactly apply to this situation, but very important to retrim if CG changes.

From what I've seen, they are practicing many different ways to shoot the ball (although they all have similarities). They are practicing jump shots from a dribble, from a catch, fade away shots, teardrop shots, layups, dunks, up and under's, etc. Granted, none of that is necessarily trying something new, but rather perfecting a technique they have been taught for each different shot. Each one adds another skill to their bag of tricks to pull out when needed. I think the same would apply to practicing takeoffs and landings. Every takeoff and landing has similar elements to it and a similar feel, but I think that in addition to a normal takeoff and landing, we should practice crosswind, no wind, short field, soft field, power on, power off, full flap, partial flap, no flap, etc. Again, not trying to learn something new, but perfecting techniques we've been taught for each. Each one adds another skill to our bag of tricks to pull out when needed. Unfortunately, every time we deviate from our "standard" landing to practice another type, we are adding an element of risk. Is it worth the risk for the skills that are developed? Answers may vary.

I get your point, but I learned long ago that anything mechanical can, and will, fail, so you need to be prepared. Whether that is having a redundant system in the plane or training for the failure, a contingency plan is mandatory. I think there is a very good reason instructors cover instruments and "fail" parts of the plane during training. However, not all training needs to take place with an instructor sitting beside you. I'm pretty sure Micheal Jordan practiced jump shots occasionally without a coach present. That said, if I'm doing something new or something I haven't practiced in a long time, I'm calling my instructor to see if he wants to go for a ride.

This comment was NOT directed at you, or anyone else in particular. I'm sorry that I offended you, I didn't have any specific post in mind when I wrote that. Just a general observation that in order to improve our skills, we have to introduce a measured amount of risk to test limits, too much risk and we become a statistic ourselves. Also, with respect to ADM, it is absolutely an invaluable tool to use, both before and during the flight. It can get you out of, or prevent you from getting into, many bad situations. However, it's not a silver bullet that can make up for poor stick and rudder skills. I know I personally struggle with the macho attitude, thinking I can handle this, so I constantly have to tell myself, don't take unnecessary chances. I was recently invited to a fly-in at an airport with a 1000' runway. All of my old training buddies were going with their cubs, pacers, and home builts. At first I thought, I can do this, I can stop and take off in 900' just about every time. Then my ADM kicked in and said, hey stupid, what about the "just about every time" did you not get. Not worth the risk. Landing on a 1000' runway is a lot different than only using 1000' of a 4000' runway from a risk standpoint.

It seems there are two very distinct views represented here on what makes for a safe pilot. One school of thought seems to be simply avoid any situation that adds additional risk, fly every approach the same, and rely on their superior ADM skills. On the other hand are those that think constantly pushing themselves to improve their skills is the better approach. Frankly, the first type of pilots scare the hell out of me and I think they are a statistic waiting to happen. Can you handle the unexpected when it happens? If you're flying over a forest and your engine quits, can you land on that 3000' strip with tall pines on either end or is "don't fly over forests" part of your ADM process? If your flaps quit working in flight, what speed do you fly final, how long of a runway do you need? I'm in the second camp and like to challenge myself. If I practice making the 1000' turnoff and make it consistently, I know that 1500' crosswind runway is available when the winds favor it. When my flaps failed in flight, I knew 90 mph approach, 85 short final, and that 2900' runway I was flying into was sufficient for both landing and takeoff. I know those in the first camp would think I was crazy for knowingly taking off with INOP flaps, but having practiced flying without them, it was just another routine flight. After all, flaps aren't required equipment and aren't needed to ensure a safe flight. It's not just stick and rudder that I practice either. I regularly leave the GPS and iPad in the flight bag. Calculate my crosswind correction and time to various waypoints and practice dead reckoning. I try not to ever let my night currency lapse (though it's tough in the summer) and intentionally land with the landing light off on occasion. I think all of this makes me a better pilot for when something unexpected happens, but maybe I'm just trying to kill myself by taking unnecessary risks.

You wouldn't be the first, nor would you have been the last. There are airports all over in Wichita, the air capital of the world. I can think of 6 without looking at the map, but I know there are a few more.

I'll throw in my $.02 as a low time pilot with about a year of Mooney experience. When I refer to "on my numbers," I'm referring to a specific number I have in my mind as I fly my approach. That number varies based on flaps, gross weight, and wind gusts. I'll admit, it's mostly a SWAG, but it's my approach speed for that landing that I do not want to deviate from. I also have to agree that most Mooney pilots fly from long paved runways to other long paved runways. I started a thread a while back asking for help with my short field technique and you'd have thought I asked about neurosurgery. There were 226 views, but I only got a total of 4 responses and only 2 of those sounded like they were experienced with short fields. It seems some on here think that a 3000' runway qualifies as a short field. As for landing technique, my instructor told me to aim for the runway and just miss it for as long as possible (on center line of course). I think I count the number of times I've let the nose wheel touch first using only my thumbs. Did I mention I was a low time pilot. As for the poster who asked about slipping the F model, my instructor who flew an F said I could slip it just like any other plane. Although, he reminded me that if I needed to slip it on a normal approach, a go-around might be a better option. If I didn't have the slip in my bag of tricks, I'm not sure I could make the turnoff 1700' past the 25' power lines. Miss that and the runway narrows to 25', so turning around means get out and push!

If you can knock your paint off with a garden hose, that paint needs to come off ASAP!!! It is just inviting corrosion to start under the paint. Better to have bare aluminum than loose paint.

I fully agree, but I doubt that many who complain about the gear being difficult are waiting until cruise to put the gear up. The inner gear doors probably also make a big difference, but again, how many who are complaining have those? My point was that anytime "reasonable" time during initial climb out, it should be easy to put the gear away unless something has changed from the factory.

I've mentioned on here before, I have no issues raising the gear in my 67F at any speed. I don't know it it's rigged "just right" or what, but I don't do the dip or anything special. My standard practice is to put the gear up right as I leave the runway, but the times that I waited, no problem up to 90 - 95 mph. I've never tried it above that.

Like many others, I hadn't heard. In times like this there just aren't any words that are adequate. Sorry for your loss, hang in there.

They're obviously not the only one.

You won't find anything, I've already checked. Par had them custom make his, so they would still have the plans and all, but as I understand, they only build them on request, not a catalog item.

This thread gives me another reason I'm glad I live in KS. All aircraft are exempt from sales & use tax. Business or antique (30 yrs) aircraft are exempt from property tax. We are a VERY aviation friendly state as we consider ourselves the "Air Capital of the World."

I'm in the same boat you are. I also fly a '67 F with the Johnson bar and lap belts only. If you want one right away @SantosDumont has one for sale in the classified section for $200. You'll need the $17.50 hardware kit from Alpha Aviation (http://alphaaviation.com/mooney-minor-change-kit-m20-a-thru-g-and-early-j/) However, you will have to deal with the unbuckling/knuckle busting that some complain about with the flip lever style belts. Some say it's an issue, some say slow down and be more careful. As for new, you have the Alpha Aviation kits: fixed strap ($369) or inertia reel ($489), plus the hardware kit for each side. You will get different opinions on the fixed strap or inertia reel, but it seems the plurality is for the inertia on the pilot side and fixed strap on the copilot. That eliminates the need to remove or loosen the strap to reach the J-bar, or more challenging, the fuel selector, when you may be in an impending forced landing situation. The fixed strap on the copilot side makes ingress and egress to the back seats easier. The other option available recently is the Hooker Harness custom belts. There isn't any info online about the Mooney version, but according to @par the price is $417 including shipping for both (plus the hardware kit for each). Look up the Hooker Harness thread, bottom of second page, for an install photo. No mention of an inertia reel available, but they show one on their price list for other harnesses. I will be giving them a call this week for more info, as with lap belts only, I'm living on borrowed time.