flyer338

In my old hangar I papered a wall in the office with WAC scale state aeronautical charts (free for the asking at the time). I pieced the charts together by trimming the overlap and wound up with a WAC scale chart of the United States. I filled in a few gaps with NOAA WAC charts.

There was a brief mention of aileron use very early in this thread, and it reminded me of the first stalls I experienced as a pre-solo student in a C-152. My instructor had me doing departure stalls and kept talking about using rudder to keep the wings level (she had not to that point told me why - I was about to provide that lesson for myself). I did what had worked for me up to that point and used the ailerons to keep wings level. Just before the wing stalled, it quite working, the wing dropped, and it seemed like I was staring straight down through the windshield. My instructor took over and recovered before a spin developed. I learned from this that increasing the AOA of a wing at the point of a stall by the use of ailerons results in the wingtip stalling first and potentially a spin entry. In more than 2500 flight hours from then to now, in many different airplanes, when practicing stalls, I use the rudder to keep the wings level.

You have better eyes than I.

There is a 1944 Beech 18 at the airport at Yerington NV. There is only one picture, but it looks like all the big parts are there. It is a lien sale by the city. I am sure there is an interesting story. https://hibid.com/catalog/197256/city-of-yerington-lien-sale---1944-beech-model-18-airplane/

The previous owner of my J model had an EIS-41000 electronic ignition installed when he overhauled the A3B6 engine. The left mag fires all of the top plugs and the EIS installed in place of the right mag fires all of the bottom plugs

I never had an engine stumble when running a tank dry. I knew both from needle position of the fuel gauge and elapsed time when to expect the tank to run dry. I kept the fuel pressure in my scan and looked at it almost constantly for the last few minutes. As soon as the fuel pressure started to drop it was boost pump on and switch tanks. I was younger and skinny in those days and the engine never hiccuped.

In my C model days for a looong cross country, I would take-off on the left tank, run for one hour, then switch to the right tank. I would run the right tank dry. This took three hour and maybe a few minutes more. I would switch back to the left tank and land within another hour. I did not have an engine analyzer or fuel flow instrumentation. This gave me a cross check on fuel burn. Before running a tank dry, I had confirmed adequate flow from the other tank. It had the advantage of having all of my remaining fuel in one tank rather than split between two tanks. Using this method was able to fly five-hour legs and land with 12 gallons remaining. Depending on the wind I might go 750 nm or more before landing. I will probably adopt a similar procedure with the J. But with an engine analyzer and fuel flow instrumentation, I know better my remaining fuel.

My take away from this accident is the importance of verifying fuel flow from both tanks before take-off. The NTSB report indicates the selector would flow when switched to the other tank. I have adopted a procedure where I start the engine and taxi on one tank and switch just before doing the run up. I am not sure this the best way though. My hangar at VGT is only a couple of hundred yards from the run up area. I am interested in others thoughts.

I saw a post in another thread that a Mooney owner was able to get a co-pilot seat with vertical adjustment from the factory. I wonder if that is still possible?

Plus one for Barnstormers - that is where I found my 201. But I kept a close eye on the ads in Trade-a-plane and Controllers as well.

My experience is that the thing autos and airplanes have in common is sitting unused is the worst thing in the world for either. My concerns in the case of the plane you are looking at center around corrosion. This includes the engine and the airframe. Mike Busch has been mentioned in this thread, and there are two books of his that you should read: “Airplane Ownership,” and “Engines.” They were quick reads; I almost could not put them down. As others have said, a C model offers a lot of the bang four your buck, but if corroded from lack of flying it will be a money pit.

Many years ago, with help from one of my flying buddies, I redid the interior in my C model using a kit from Airtex. They are still around. Their product was good quality and reasonably priced. https://www.airtexinteriors.com/catalogue/seat_assemblies.php

I was thumbing through the want ads in the Shelby County Tribune when this classified advertisement caught my eye: take immediate delivery on this Mooney airplane . . . Dog’s name is Frank.

I miss my C, but she has a good home. I miss my J too; but as soon as there is a weather window, I will bring her home. My doctor has a Lancair IV propjet, but I would rather have my Mooney.

I purchased the main gear tool from @Sabremech. I do not need the nose gear tool for a J model.

I looked up a couple of my flights between MHR (near Sacramento CA) and FOT (on the northern CA coast) and found that Flight Aware lost the track about half way. I think this might be because I was not in range of any ADS-B ground stations for that part of the flight.

I wonder if the speed increase from a good wax job would be as much on a Mooney flying at 150 ktas instead of more than 200?

And that is the risk benefit trade-off inherent to light plane operations. That is what I mean by commiserate advantage. And it is something we evaluate on a continual basis in real time. Taking off in a mix with heavy jets includes wake turbulence avoidance. I think that cuts in favor of using all of the runway so I can make an early turn and avoid the wake turbulence. A midfield departure potentially puts one beneath the wake vortices with no real escape.

So I taxi another mile while the oil temp climbs into the green. Now I have 12,000 feet in front of me instead of 7,000. If I happen to loose the lottery and this is my day for an engine failure on take-off, I have another mile of runway to put the plane down safely. I think the point is that when you give up a benefit there must be a commiserate advantage. In my opinion that is rarely the case for an intersection take-off.

I think the degree to which the elevator is in trail depends on the downforce necessary for level flight In the current configuration. The pictures are not from the speed trial posted. I was flying in formation with a C-182, and slow. The less downforce, the less drag. That is one of the reasons I reported the CG. I loaded the plane for a near limit aft CG for the speed trial on purpose.

The part that came with the kit was composite. But hey, the factory is back up!

Paul’s airplane was an E model. I doubt there is anyone, except possibly Roy LoPresti, more knowledgeable about getting Mooneys to fly fast. This was his personal airplane. I do not know how accurate the ASI was, but I had just flown that route in my plane, so I knew the winds aloft; I think what I reported was very close. I would sell my 201 and buy that plane in a heartbeat!

Yes, when I discovered this list the Cessnas I flew were gear down and bolted (welded?).

One of the best comforts of airplane ownership is knowing my Mooney is snug in its hangar, full of fuel, and ready to go, wherever and whenever I want.

Maybe I should buy a back spring clutch kit? I am certain to need one, and there is a karmic effect from having it on hand that should delay that day.