flyer338

Will they fit an ‘83 201 with a folding rear seat? If so I am interested.

Unless other considerations arise, such as fuel cost or needing to fill all the seats, I much prefer departing with full fuel. When the unexpected appears, the fuel left in the truck back at the airport is useless.

You might contact Lasar at Lakport, Ca. I assume you are talking about the trim piece at the bottom of the windshield on the outside. They sell the windshield kit to retrofit the 201 windshield to legacy models and the kit includes this part.

I think the Cessna 2-series aircraft are great planes, albeit inefficient. However, they are to my 201 in having a nimble feel, as my 201 is to my C.

I learned early on, knowledge of the FARs is essential to keeping this commandment. Be careful of the stories told in the airport lounge (now online).

Thus my gratitude and appreciation for my 201 are that much greater.

N78898 was one of the planes that fell withing the great Chevron bad fuel debacle of 1994 and wound up with a factory reman engine. I flew it down to Lakeport for Lasar to do the work; Paul Loewen flew me back in his E (I think it was a '65) and it trued at 170 knots at 6,500. Here are a couple of pictures of 898:

I just heard back from Sherry Loewen's Mooney Salvage at Lakeport, and while they have late model seats available, none are vertically adjustable. So far, my Google-fu has come up empty at other sites.

I am back to flying and back to Mooney ownership after 8.5 years on the ground and it feels great. I was going through my hard drive and found something I wrote about testing my previous Mooney (1965 C N78898 - now flying out of Allentown, New Jersey). I flew this airplane about 2,000 hours over more than 10 years. Two years and 500 hours into my stewardship of 898 I began to modify it for reduced drag. Not only did I gain in speed, I also gained in climb, visibility, better ride in turbulence, and a little quieter cabin. Albeit at a cost of more than $6,000 (did the labor myself), and about 90 lbs. useful load. The drag reduction mods were: flap gap and aileron gap seals, dorsal fairing, tail rood fairings, rudder and elevator hinge covers, cowl closure, landing light cover, brake rotation, 201 wing tips, 201 windshield, smooth belly, and moving several antennas inside. I also removed the rotating beacon and replaced it with strobes in the new wingtips. I offset some of the mod weight by updating the panel and losing the KX-170B and King ADF. I did some speed testing at various altitudes using GPS to eliminate the ASI error. To the best of my ability, the speeds I am reporting are real. Before modification 898 would cruise at 140 ktas between 7500 and 8500 on 65% power. Aircraft: 1965 M20C, TTAF 6179 hrs, TTE 1102 hrs (O-360-A1D, 180 hp). Mods: flap and aileron gap seals, smooth belly, cowl closure, dorsal fin and tail root fairings, rudder and elevator hinge covers, 201 windshield, 201 wingtips, landing light cover, and brake calipers rotated. Rotating beacon removed; com 2, transponder, and elt antennas moved inside. Test conditions: Altimeter 30.06, OAT at 1000' +15c, OAT at 5000' and 7000' +21c. Aircraft take off weight 2150 lbs at 48" aft of datum. Test method: For each altitude and aircraft configuration the plane was flown on a cardinal heading and the airspeed allowed to stabilize. Actual true airspeed was calculated from the GPS groundspeeds on the cardinal headings (NSEW). All speeds are knots. Calculated true airspeed and density altitude were calculated using the CAL function of the KLX-135A gps. Flight test was done over the ocean to minimize the effects of up and down drafts on the results. Results: 7000' top speed. Full throttle (22.5" mp) and 2700 rpm. Mixture 100 rich of peak (best power). DA was 9000'. IAS 140, calculated TAS 159, actual TAS 154. 7000' cruise. Full throttle (22.5" mp) and 2300 rpm. Mixture was best economy (just rich enough to keep the engine smooth). DA was 9000'. IAS 138, calculated TAS 157, actual TAS 153. 5000' top speed. Full throttle (24.5" mp) and 2700 rpm. Mixture was set full rich. IAS 146, calculated TAS 160, actual TAS 155. DA was 6900' 1000' top speed. Full throttle (28" mp) and 2700 rpm. Mixture was set full rich. IAS 163, calculated TAS 165, actual TAS 158. DA was 1200' Conclusion: The airspeed indicator is 4-5 knots fast at cruise and about 7 knots fast at full scale (163 knots is almost VNE). Before modification the max IAS was 150. I would be interested in this kind of detailed test results from other stock and modified Mooneys, especially older short body planes and 201s.

This is something I came across as a student pilot almost 30 years ago. It still brings a smile. I made a change to the title to make it appropriate for this list. I particularly think the one about checklists is appropriate here, and I also like the one about weather prophets. Mooney Pilots’ Ten Commandments I. Thou shalt abstain from the intersection takeoff for, verily, the runway behind thee, as the altitude above thee, cometh not to thine aid when thou needest them. II. Thou shalt not linger on active runways lest thou become like unto minced meat. III. Ignorest not they checklists, for many are the switches, handles, Gauges, and other demons awaiting to take cruel vengeance upon thee. IV. Thou shalt cast thine eyes to thy right and also to thy left as thou passeth through the firmament lest thy fellow pilots bring flowers to thy widow, and comfort her in other ways. V. Thou shalt not buzz, for this shall surely incur the wrath of thy neighbors and the fury of the authorities shall be called down upon thy head. VI. Thou shalt be ever mindful of thy fuel lest there be nothing in thy tank to sustain thee upon the air and thy days be made short. VII. Trust not thine eyes to lead thee through the cloud lest the Arc-angle Gabriel await thee therein. VIII. Thou shalt not trespass into the thunderstorm lest the tempest rend the wings from thy chariot and cast thee naked into the firmament. IX. Put not thy trust in weather prophets, for when the truth is not in them they shall not accompany thee among thy ancestors. X. Thou shalt often confirm thine airspeed on final lest the earth rise up and smite thee.

It has been a while, but as I recall the one-piece belly pan was a lot of it. And the other mods each added a little; it adds up. I may still have electronic copies of the 337s. I will look and see if I can find the actual numbers. The windshield also greatly improved visibility in turns and made it quieter inside.

It seems that I was misinformed. Thank you for getting me the correct information.

The delta for speed mods between cost and speed increase is really defined by how much labor one has to buy. The ‘65 C I used to own cruised at 23” / 2400 rpm (65% power - 8 gph) at 140 ktas. After adding the following mods: 201 windshield, cowl closure, smooth belly, flap gap and aileron gap seals, all three tail mods, and moving one com antenna, and the transponder, DME, and ELT antennas inside, I had 152 ktas cruise at the same power setting. The useful load took about a 90 lb. hit. I did the work myself under appropriate supervision. The total cost (1996) was around 6 AMU. That was more than paid back in reduced fuel cost over the next 500 hours. An unlooked for benefit was a 50% increase in rate of climb - initial rate of climb at sea level went from 700 rpm to 1100 fpm. The airspeed indicator in that plane read fast; at 1000 feet at 2700 rpm and wide open throttle, I cruise at 189 mph indicated. A four-way gps showed it was only 182 mph. The stall speed was also slower; at 2300 lbs. the plane stalled power off in the landing configuration at 49 mph CAS. The glide ratio was also better at more than 13:1. I more than got the value of my money and my time.

I am looking to buy a co-pilot seat for a 1983 J model that has vertical adjustment.

My ‘65 C model neither had nor needed vertically adjustable seats. I really like the placement of the engine and fuel gauges in my ‘83 J despite the raised panel height. Fortunately it has an vertically adjusting pilot seat. The co-pilot seat is not vertically adjustable and my 5’ sweetheart and a 5’ 6” friend complain they are sitting too low. I did not have a problem (5’ 11”) test flying the plane from the right seat. If I could find a vertically adjustable right seat, I would be interested.

Beechcraft had a line of airplanes from trainer to twin, and they were successful with that business model. I had no trouble transitioning to a ‘65 C from fixed gear Cessnas at about 500 hours total time. I think the transition to an Ovation or Acclaim at that experience level would have been much more difficult. If Mooney revives, they should take a hard look at building the models they sold the most of: the C, E, and J. I know Mooney went to the long body because of the higher profit per unit, but it might be there is a market for an efficient, relatively easy to fly, fast airplane - like a modern E or J built efficiently using modern methods.

There is a big difference in the control feel of the ‘65 C model I used to own and the ‘83 J I just bought. The C was much more nimble feeling. As to buying a pimped out twin, buying gas for or two engines does not pencil out for me, no matter how cheap to buy. I understand Comanches have gear motor issues that make the Mooney back spring issues seem like a blessing. I do not know if they apply to Twin Comanches.

I am not sure how big a factor this was, but knowing when to refuse a clearance or especially a modification to a clearance is potentially life saving. I used to file IFR from Fortuna (KFOT) to various Bay Area airports.. Approach control often wanted to drop me low and send me over the ocean beyond gliding distance to land. I learned to refuse the change because I was not willing to risk a water landing in very cold water. I never expected to have, or had, an engine failure in my C, but I never flew out over water at an altitude that did not allow for glide back to the beach if the fan stopped.

One of the issues with pre-roller-lifter Lycoming engines is that the camshaft is lubricated by oil splash from the crankshaft. When the engine rpm is less than 1,000 there is not enough splash to lubricate the camshaft lobes. This is exacerbated during cold engine operation using straight weight oil. Ney nozzles are one solution, and avoiding corrosion by frequently flying is also important. But avoiding engine rpm of less than 1,000 may be important as well. Another advantage of the A3B6 engine is the ability to replace the right magneto with an EIS-40000 electronic ignition. Electronic ignition, not only provides a hotter spark, but also allows spark advance when the manifold pressure decreases as altitude increases. This increases horsepower at altitude and likewise climb rate and airspeed.

This thread may save one of us from a similar problem. I am happy for a simple and inexpensive outcome.

I am wondering, is an S model airworthy when the landing gear will not retract? It occurs to me that a ferry permit might be required for the return flight. I hope the problem turns out to be both simple and inexpensive.

I cannot comment on how an IO-550 might run lean of peak with electronic ignition replacing one magneto. My ‘83J has an A3B6 engine and the EIS 40000 electronic ignition in place of the right mag. This airplane is new to me, but I think the electronic ignition is great starting about 11,000 feet. The spark advances and more horsepower is available than otherwise at higher altitude. At lower altitudes I am able to run lean of peak at 65% power for 150 knots true at 7.7 gph. I will refine these numbers as I get more time in this plane.

The 3.6 liter normally aspirated V-6 engine in my Cadillac is rated at 309 hp, and the 6.9 liter diesel V-8 in my old Ford truck is rated at 135 hp. I do not have the torque specifications at hand just now. The Cadillac burns 13 lbs. per hour in cruise at 72 mph. Depending on the bfsc I calculate the engine is making between 26 and 52 hp — the higher figure is 16% power. If the engine makes it 200k miles that would be 2778 hours.

That must have been quite a ride. Did the plane stay on the runway?

Another thing, I really found the discussion about what spares to carry both thought provoking and enlightening. I think carrying a spare main gear and spare nose gear tube is worth the useful load required. But maybe a patch kit would do as well?